2022 06 21 City Council
City Council · packet · 304 pages · Descriptive metadata inferred from filename
Extracted text for page 152
Unverified text extraction. Check the original page for numbers, names, and layout.
69 Section 4: Mitigation Strategy Mitigation Goals The purpose for developing a set of Goals is to clearly state the community’s overall vision for hazard mitigation and to provide a path towards building a safer, more resilient community. The McMinn County Hazard Mitigation Committee identified the following goals to be the forefront in the overall development of this plan. All actions/projects recommended as mitigation efforts for the Haza rd Mitigation Plan must first meet or further at least one of these goals. The goals are provided in a ranked order where the first goal is paramount. Goal 1: Protect the lives and health of citizens from the effects of natural hazards. Goal 2: Emphasize mitigation planning to decrease vulnerability of existing and new structures. Goal 3: Encourage public support and commitment to hazard mitigation, by communicating mitigation benefits. Identification and Prioritization of Mitigation Projects McMinn County, and all jurisdictions within, has developed a comprehensive range of mitigation projects. These projects were solicited and identified by the different entities who make up the McMinn County Hazard Mitigation Committee. Once the proposed projects attained a sponsoring agency and the details of the projects were disc ussed by the committee, the committee then proceeded to prioritize the mitigation projects. The prioritization process was important since most mitigation projects represent a large investment of financial and personal resources. By evaluating each project’s degree of feasibility and the level of costs versus benefits, McMinn County was able to determine when and which projects sho uld be implemented based on available funding and time. The McMinn County Hazard Mitigation Committee used the SAFE‐T method to prioritize these projects. This approach was adopted from the successful methodology used by other counties in FEMA Region 4. This rating system uses five vari ables to evaluate the overall feasibility and appropriateness: Societal, Administrative, Financial, Environmental, and Technical. A focus on this methodology emphasizes the use of a cost‐benefit review to maximize benefits. 150