Res 2018-025/adopting the 2018 Hays County, Texas Hazard Mitigation Plan as the official plan of the City; authorizing the inclusion of the City of San Marcos Hazard Mitigation Plan as an appendix; designating the City Manager as the official authorized

Home Browse Search

Hays County Hazard Mitigation Plan Review of Existing 2011 Mitigation Action Plan MPC planners conducted a review of t the 2011 Mitigation Action Plan and completed Mitigation Action Progress Report Forms for their planning areas. Using this tool, they captured the status of the action and provided a summary of the progress that had been achieved since the last reporting period. With the inclusion of 5 changed/new hazard profiles for the mitigation plan update, new action items needed to be considered for the following: •Lightning •Hailstorms •Windstorms •Expansive Soils •Land Subsidence Mitigation Action Summary Worksheets (Figure 3.2) were used for recording details for each action. Information captured in the worksheet includes Mitigation Strategy •Title Figure 3.2, Mitigation Action Progress Report Form •Issue the Action Addresses •Opportunities for Integration •Responsible Agency •Partners •Strategy for Existing Structures •Strategy for Future Development •Potential Funding •Cost Estimate •Benefits of the Project •Timeline •Priority (calculated on Mitigation Action Prioritization Tool) At least 2 action items were developed for each hazard for each community. These are detailed in the mitigation action plans found in the respective jurisdiction annexes. The cost estimate that was completed on the Mitigation Action Summary Worksheets was supported by a supplementary form called “Benefit and Cost Review”, shown in Figure 3.3. This form provided planners with the ability to provide a broad estimate of quantitative and qualitative costs and benefits associated with each action that is being considered for inclusion in the plan. These broad values were based on experience, estimates or judgment of the planners. This differs from a full benefit/cost analysis, which requires much further analysis and quantification. The tool allowed for a quantified analysis of an improvement of “Safety and Way of Life”, as well as “Economic Advantages”. For non-quantifiable standards, it provided a way to indicate if the project reduces risk for short/long term, provides opportunities to integrate into other goals/initiative, has ease of implementation, availability of funding, and political/social acceptability. 66