2026-03-12 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Anoka County2025 Hazard Mitigation Planz.umn.edu/AnokaHMP 2.3.2Overview of Jurisdictional Participation Throughout the planning process, Anoka County and the U-Spatial team worked to engage representatives from the county and each city in the update of the plan. Key activities for jurisdictions included assisting with public outreach, participating in planning team meetings, providing local-level information, and reviewing and providing feedback to the plan update. U-Spatial and Anoka County actively used the following methods to engage jurisdictions in the HMP plan update process: Zoom Video Conferencing: Planning team meetings were conducted via Zoom video conferencing hosted by U-Spatial. Virtual meetings proved to be a beneficial addition to the planning process, resulting in a high turnout from jurisdictional representatives and other stakeholders, as well as providing the ability for presenters to collect, respond to, and document feedback from participants through Zoom functions such as surveys, chat, and Q&A. Email Correspondence: Email was a primary tool used to communicate with representatives from Anoka County, municipal governments, and other stakeholders. Emails were used to distribute news releases for public outreach, to invite participation in meetings and to share meeting summaries, as well as to request local information and final review of the draft plan. Email proved to be an effective tool that resulted in increased jurisdictional participation and collection of locally specific information. Surveys, forms, and polls: Input tools such as surveys, forms, and tools were used throughout the process to efficiently collect information in a format that could directly be fed into the written hazard mitigation plan. Polls were used to elicit feedback during the planning team meetings. The Local Mitigation Survey (LMS) was used to ensure feedback from every jurisdiction for critical input such as building code use, NFIP adoption, and changes in vulnerabilities. Feedback forms were posted on the website for easy access during the plan review. Phone Calls: Phone calls were frequently used to conduct direct outreach or follow-up to jurisdictions to ensure participation or to collect information via one-on-one interviews. Phone calls proved to be an effective tool that resulted in increased jurisdictional participation and collection of quality information. Phone calls were especially useful in engaging very small communities that had limited staff or technological capabilities. Cities participating in Anoka County HMP update varied by population and associated government resources to participate in the planning process (e.g., personnel, time, and technology). Rural communities with smaller populations (under 500) typically had part-time elected officials, limited-to- no city staff, and reduced city hall hours in which to conduct business. Anoka County and U-Spatial were sensitive to these local challenges and worked to help these local governments to participate using the methods that worked best to accommodate them, such as phone interviews to complete local mitigation survey forms (see Appendix C). Table 3 provides an overview of each city’s participation in the Anoka County HMP update planning process and a reference to supporting documentation. Section 2 9 Public Planning Process 18