2026-03-12 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Anoka County2025 Hazard Mitigation Planz.umn.edu/AnokaHMP Name Agency/Organization Participant Title Steve Griffiths Stepping Stone Emergency Housing Executive Director Jon Janke Coon Creek Watershed District Director of Operations Erik Bye Coon Creek Watershed District Planning Coordinator David Petry Rice Creek Watershed District Project Manager 2.2 Review of Existing Plans, Capabilities & Vulnerabilities Anoka County and its local communities utilized a variety of planning documents to direct plan development. These documents included a Comprehensive/Master Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, Transportation Plan, etc. (see Section 5.1.4 and Appendix D). The planning process also incorporated the existing natural hazard mitigation elements from previous planning efforts. In addition, the 2024 Minnesota All-Hazard Mitigation Plan was consulted. In the development of the Anoka County HMP, U-Spatial consultants reviewed and incorporated a variety of planning documents that direct community development and influence land use decisions for the county and its jurisdictions. In addition, U-Spatial consultants worked closely with the Anoka County emergency management director and other key county staff and local city officials to collect feedback on local mitigation capabilities and vulnerabilities that either support or hinder the ability to mitigate against natural hazards countywide and at the local level. Building codes offer a way to incorporate geographically relevant and best available building science with policies and programs. While Anoka County has not adopted the Minnesota Building Code, all participating cities and Linwood Township have adopted the state building code. For more information, see Appendix C, Question 7: Building Codes. The following is a summary of the assessment tools used to gather information on local capabilities and vulnerabilities during the planning process: Capabilities Assessment (hazard-specific):In this assessment, detailed information was collected from Anoka County on current plans and programs in place (i.e., existing programs, plans, or policies) as well as program gaps or deficiencies that currently exist to mitigate against damages caused by each natural hazard addressed in the plan. Section 4 identifies current gaps and deficiencies for mitigation, and Section 5.1 describes the capabilities that Anoka County has to support mitigation. Local Mitigation Surveys: As part of Anoka County’s 2025 HMP update, participating jurisdictions, key county personnel, and additional agency stakeholders were asked to fill out a Local Mitigation Survey (LMS) form. Questions in the LMS form addressed the following: Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment & Vulnerability Analysis Local Mitigation Capabilities Assessment Local Mitigation Projects Survey Participants Section 2 7 Public Planning Process 16