My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-10-25-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
03-10-25-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 10:19:19 AM
Creation date
3/17/2025 10:16:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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.
/
418
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 />Ramsey County | Multi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan 60 <br />In addition, some 2019 actions were re-worded or combined with other actions. These actions are <br />reflected in the strategy in Section 4.8. <br />Finally, some 2019 actions were removed from the 2025 strategy due to being outside the scope of <br />hazard mitigation. While not true hazard mitigation actions, they are still considered important by the <br />communities that listed them. A list of these actions is included in Appendix A. <br />4.6 2025 Mitigation Strategy Elements <br />For all new and continuing actions, communities were asked to provide background information on the <br />action. Each action includes: <br />• Mitigation action name <br />• What is the problem the action is solving? <br />• How does the action solve the problem? <br />• Action status <br />• Hazards the action helps mitigate <br />• Plan goal(s) the action helps implement <br />• Lead and support agencies for each action <br />• Potential funding sources to support each action <br />• Benefits of implementing the action <br />• Estimated cost of the action <br />• Estimated timeline for the action <br />4.7 Action Prioritization <br />Communities were asked to score each action on a set of metrics. These metrics were: <br />• Potential for lives saved <br />• Potential for reduced property damages <br />• Potential for reduced response actions <br />• Whether the benefits of the action exceed the costs <br />• Internal community action priority ranking <br />Each metric was scored on a scale of 1 – 3, and the total scores were tallied up to identify a final priority <br />ranking. Final rankings were based on a minimum score of 5 and a maximum score of 15. <br />• 5 – 8 Low Priority <br />• 9 – 12 Medium Priority <br />• 13 – 15 High Priority
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.