[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6670887,"mediaKeyId","2171819-e1d52db7d02b7ba733495e95f20f65de","parentId",2171819,"title","Advisory group examines transportation funding, county roads and bicycle/trail connectivity","audioSeconds",693,"startMs",3525000,"endMs",4218000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171819-e1d52db7d02b7ba733495e95f20f65de&start=3525&end=4218","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171819-e1d52db7d02b7ba733495e95f20f65de/thumbnail_3525000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6670887/Coconino-County/Arizona/Advisory-group-examines-transportation-funding-county-roads-and-bicycletrail-connectivity","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6670887-1c555fa928993d51362c68a98e067c1d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171459&Signature=AfLnGkvmAv9Fwdk0uLsAVBKyk2m-nbuopuTXHE6FI28dqosq7TPZ5SsP477JLdsXLUddp1qqbd94j3sALElxs3gmSg7lR7yLo~HvaY80zbgmYM1laJ0WKktp7eMCLmrEA5hvqW6jKHI3SRbycFuKp29yE9qbTpDafcStkwbJfGurvN1ySRJgRgn1KvrIwJkBY-Qj9wDhsRgf5pj2ztLCsVKXqi3EIiUspJFnlcpkSv~~Who4AjOi1M2yCLFoprVw7cRckWEMCI7R0POU0lc-W7jguKVEwm9-64RzRAzx4nRKx5YYUw3OQD375yjN02VHhZ45~VqWwL43B0GE5AtiMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Coconino County","date","2025-01-01T05:14:18.393Z","article","The Coconino County advisory group reviewed the new circulation and transportation chapter and questioned how county responsibilities, funding formulas and project priorities are reflected in the draft.

Advisory members asked staff to make clear, early in the chapter, which roadways the county maintains and which are the responsibility of cities, towns, state agencies or tribal nations. County staff said they would link to the county's ArcGIS road-maintenance map showing the county-maintained system and noted the map changes periodically.

Funding dominated much of the discussion. Staff and advisory members explained that most road funding comes from federal and state highway-user revenues (gas-tax receipts) and that Arizona's highway-user-fund levels have been effectively flat for decades. Participants noted that Coconino County passed a road-maintenance sales tax (Prop 403) that has materially increased county road funding and that the county will need a long-term strategy to sustain that revenue when the 20-year measure nears its expiration. Staff confirmed the current sales-tax funding runs through 2034 and that the county will need to consider renewal or alternate funding sources.

The group debated tolls and user-fee ideas for federal or recreation roads. Several participants said users should pay for heavy maintenance demands on remote roads; others noted practical, administrative and political hurdles to implementing tolls or per-user fees on federal or county routes.

Participants also discussed EV charging. Staff noted ADOT and other programs are expanding chargers on state routes and that commercial developments typically can add EV chargers as accessory uses under current zoning; if a charging facility is the primary use it would trigger commercial permitting. Advisory members suggested the county consider model language for requiring chargers in large projects or public projects where feasible.

On active transportation, staff reported an application was submitted for a county-wide multimodal connectivity master plan (a potential $1,000,000 grant application) to study pedestrian, bicycle, and other connectivity between communities including Flagstaff, Williams and the Grand Canyon. The group supported including bicycle and trail connectivity in planning both for resilience and for visitor access.

Staff described planned transportation studies intended to make the county more competitive for grant funding, including a Belmont-area circulation study and a countywide safety master plan that will target fatality- and injury-reduction projects on collector and arterial routes. Staff noted studies help jurisdictions secure federal and state grants.

Staff said they would incorporate advisory comments, flag a policy about sustaining the county road-maintenance tax for future renewal, and bring revised text back to the advisory group.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Coconino County Comprehensive Plan Advisory Group Meeting 5 | November 25, 2024","oneSentenceSummary","The advisory group reviewed the circulation and transportation chapter, focusing on which roads the county maintains, funding sources (including the county's Prop 403 sales-tax revenue), limits of highway-user funds, tolls and user fees, EV charging station policy and a county grant application for a multimodal connectivity master plan.","taxTitle","Coconino County, Arizona","taxId",2575,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6670893,"Advisory group debates definitions, local agriculture, microgrids and county renewable goals",1130,1430000,2560000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171819-e1d52db7d02b7ba733495e95f20f65de&start=1430&end=2560","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171819-e1d52db7d02b7ba733495e95f20f65de/thumbnail_1430000.jpg","/articles/6670893/Coconino-County/Arizona/Advisory-group-debates-definitions-local-agriculture-microgrids-and-county-renewable-goals","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6670893-3252695bb1fabdccb625107ec30c3aa8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171459&Signature=cOrOlIRctAoyjjV8DaYnbEVneJSYXMEbeJyP7syyt~Ttj2SCEaCZGZ23UTjosCWPG-f3WPob1Kz-IjcAj1p6XSELh8pTCdDHd6oh7Bt4TbDBwnzYQhDnxHZCNXVmUgkZIzGhnEtXlU~X2CsoT-W2Adc-JXWxEejZomCSLQvtdp3ygwYDaid-oHMjv64FHc-ULsMXUwmZXL5NXEIeRWB6QNvHIyBjnCCP8m9b0ih5LlFup0rPkqitRdKlApCwJfGJUE1XZeoM~P4iYportuyu6Ke6v2B-7hyA3RRpKgrXR8LNsE3HB1iGjMuWDp-GQm3OAlNVzEZyxMrz-Qu5BxhWnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the Coconino County advisory group reviewed the sustainability, resilience, energy and climate draft and pressed staff for clearer definitions, more concrete implementation strategies, and corrected terminology before broader public review.

Advisory members asked for an explicit definition of “conservation” in the chapter and requested that definitions and glossary terms be consistent across all plan chapters. Staff said a glossary is being developed and that definitions will be hyperlinked into the draft.

Food and agricultural resilience drew sustained comment. One participant urged removal of the phrase “small-scale” from a policy supporting agriculture and ranching, arguing the county should support farming and processing at any scale. The group discussed local meat-processing capacity and USDA inspection requirements: participants noted few USDA‑inspected slaughter facilities are available in the region, and that facilities inspected only under state or local (non‑USDA) inspection regimes cannot sell product broadly for restaurant use. The advisory group asked staff to leave policy language supporting agriculture and ranching in the draft while noting the county currently lacks direct implementation programs.

On energy, participants discussed renewable projects, power purchase agreements and whether locally produced renewable electricity “stays” in Coconino County. County staff explained that power purchase agreements allow utilities to allocate renewable generation across their portfolios and that electricity flows on the regional grid rather than being physically tied to a single local buyer. Advisory members asked staff to add a table clarifying buyers or purchasers listed in the renewable-energy table and to add a final column showing whether projects have purchase agreements and, if known, with which utilities (SRP, APS, Tucson Electric were discussed).

The advisory group also raised the idea of community-scale microgrids and local electric co‑ops. Staff and participants noted Arizona Corporation Commission rules limit who can sell electricity and that forming local distribution co‑ops or retaining generation locally would likely require state-level policy changes. Participants recommended the chapter note the regulatory constraints and the potential benefits of community-scale resiliency projects.

Finally, staff proposed adding language to an organizational policy to “continue expanding county renewable energy infrastructure” rather than committing the county to a specific net‑zero target. Staff said several county buildings already have solar installations and that the county has an EPA grant application in process for a building in Tuba City that would include solar PV.

Staff said revisions will be posted online, the glossary will be developed and linked, and implementation strategies will be collected across chapters into one document for the advisory group to rank for priority in a later meeting.","Advisory members reviewed revisions to the sustainability, resilience, energy and climate chapter, asking for clearer definitions (for example, what 'conservation' means), discussing local food-processing and USDA inspection limits, and raising legal and technical constraints for local energy solutions such as community-scale microgrids.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6670898,"Advisory group flags wording, local water concerns as Coconino County updates water-resources chapter",226,479000,705000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2171819-e1d52db7d02b7ba733495e95f20f65de&start=479&end=705","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2171819-e1d52db7d02b7ba733495e95f20f65de/thumbnail_479000.jpg","/articles/6670898/Coconino-County/Arizona/Advisory-group-flags-wording-local-water-concerns-as-Coconino-County-updates-water-resources-chapter","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6670898-3502fd31225ac4742852ce76497c30dc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771171459&Signature=GK4oZSdKdoMg34Iy5Utxe2zrj7cx2V1~KLG~T0CgLiKTTYMAuOfAviAUgWPy-ghI5z6IxKqrCUXtS~4tyWNvLCNNMhsFIi4yGy4k~H0GL2-vymtjVvcnPaCRO-jelmmogYxVuNaxKiS9L57KxVA96zIqWx9G1tFAPHCsr096gULd2MMzeYQhdd40S1~USq1dXPBol3XuM3eRB1lcPBnSyumTBxiU4R9qBbCOu8uttTfov4wMMW~mO6nMSGXGKTxD6~16~340W7WfeSjSrddyzRXVlYWbhDta49YNewB36yFwVNEzAXkwQya~PGihmvlNka7VSePDD5lNTkZWHVy~uQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of the Coconino County advisory group reviewed revisions to the draft water-resources chapter and identified multiple wording and factual clarifications they want before the chapter moves to a 60-day public review.

Advisory members said the draft incorrectly uses the term “permit” in at least one place and asked staff to replace it with the correct term — a “statement of claim” — to reflect how water rights are described in the county’s materials. They also requested edits to a paragraph on “water demand and future supply,” recommending punctuation and word changes to improve clarity and to remove a phrase they said read awkwardly.

Why it matters: the water-resources chapter will underpin later policy and funding recommendations. Advisory members said inaccurate terminology or unclear sourcing could mislead the public or confuse subsequent technical review.

During discussion, participants raised local water-quality concerns. One attendee asked whether a sentence listing generally “very good” surface-water quality in county river reaches includes Oak Creek, noting Oak Creek has documented water-quality issues and asking whether Arizona Department of Environmental Quality monitoring is reflected in the draft. Staff replied that ADEQ monitoring and referenced studies are cited in the appendix and that they would clarify the language.

Advisory members also questioned a passage that says modeling shows increasing groundwater drawdown in eastern Coconino County from agricultural and municipal uses. Staff said those results come from modeling cited in the previous comprehensive‑plan update and that they would return to the studies cited in the draft to pull out more specific local findings and dates. A participant suggested the draft should avoid implying recent, local monitoring if the supporting work is older or regional in scope.

Other housekeeping items included a request to expand acronyms and identify the “Colorado Watershed Partnership” referenced in the appendix so readers can find the source material. Staff said the partnership report is included in the appendix materials previously distributed and that they will add a clearer citation and a direct link on the project website.

Staff told the group they will incorporate the requested language changes and post updated drafts on the project website for public review. They reiterated the chapter material will remain drafts until the full plan package goes out for the official 60‑day public comment period and open houses.

Looking ahead, advisory members asked staff to confirm the specific studies behind modeling statements in the chapter and to flag where language attributes conclusions to modeling versus local monitoring.","Advisory-group members reviewed revisions to the water-resources chapter, requested wording changes (including replacing “permit” with “statement of claim”), raised local water-quality concerns such as Oak Creek, and asked staff for clearer sourcing on modeling cited for eastern Coconino County groundwater impacts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Advisory group examines transportation funding, county roads and bicycle/trail connectivity

Advisory group debates definitions, local agriculture, microgrids and county renewable goals

Advisory group flags wording, local water concerns as Coconino County updates water-resources chapter