My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01/08/2007 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2007
>
01/08/2007 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2014 10:25:23 AM
Creation date
3/6/2014 11:21:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
01/08/2007
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
470
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• <br />Anoka County Multi - Jurisdictional <br />All Hazards Mitigation Plan <br />5.2.6 Mitigation Actions Prioritization <br />The cohesive collection of actions listed in each jurisdiction's MAP also can serve as an easily <br />understood menu of mitigation policies and projects for local decision - makers who want to <br />quickly review their jurisdiction's respective element of the countywide Plan. In preparing the <br />individual Mitigation Actions Plans, each jurisdiction considered their overall hazard risk and <br />capability to mitigate identified hazards as recorded through the risk and capability assessment <br />process and to meet the countywide mitigation goals and the unique needs of their community. <br />Prioritizing mitigation actions for each jurisdiction was based on the "STAPLEE" process. <br />"STAPLEE" uses multiple factors under the categories of Social, Technical, Administration, <br />Legal, Economic and Environment. <br />• SOCIAL <br />• Community Acceptance — L =1 <br />• 1 — Potential objection from public and /or very expensive. <br />• 2 — Unknown if objectionable, or costs may be significant. <br />• 3 — Not objectionable and low /no costs. <br />• Effect On Population — L =3 Per FEMA criteria, this is based on potential <br />adverse effect on a segment of the community population. <br />• 3 — Minimal or no adverse impact on any population segment. <br />• 2 — Moderate adverse impact on some population segment. <br />• 1 — Serious adverse impact on some population segment. <br />• TECHNICAL <br />• Technical Feasibility — L =1 <br />• 1 — Technology not currently existing. <br />• 2 — Emerging or untested technology or unknown. <br />• 3 — Technology readily available. <br />• Long -Term Solution — L =1 <br />• 1 — No, is not effective in helping reduce losses in the long term. <br />• 2 — Potentially or unknown. <br />• 3 — Yes, is effective in helping reduce losses in the long term. <br />• Secondary Impacts — L =3 <br />• 3 — No, unlikely to create secondary problems. <br />• 2 — Potentially or unknown. <br />• 1 — Yes, likely to create secondary problems. <br />• ADMINISTRATIVE <br />• Staffing — L =3 <br />• 3 — Do not have to hire. <br />• 2 — Potentially need to hire a temporary employee(s) or unknown. <br />• 1 — Need to hire a permanent employee(s). <br />• Funding Potential — L =1 <br />• 1 — No obvious source of funding available and action has significant <br />cost impact. <br />• 2 — Limited or unknown funding available. <br />• 3 — Little or no funding required or funding can be readily obtained. <br />• Maintenance /Operations L =3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.