HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2013.01.23 - 20680MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #13004 January 23, 2013
By:, General Government Committee, Christine Long, Chairperson
IN RE: HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES - HOMELAND SECURITY DIVISION- HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN ADOPTION
TO: OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS Oakland County, Michigan, is subject to flooding, tornadoes, winter storms, and other
natural, technological, and human hazards; and
WHEREAS the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency provides grants to
implement long-term hazard mitigation measures before and after a disaster; and
WHEREAS per M.R. #11115 grant funding in an amount up to $177,389.20 was accepted from
the State of Michigan to complete this plan; and
WHEREAS to remain eligible to receive mitigation monies, Oakland County prepared a Hazard
Mitigation Plan (the "PLAN") for the County and all communities in the County; and
WHEREAS the Plan is a tool for reducing the risks from natural and man made hazards and for
providing a guide to commit resources that will reduce the effects of the hazards; and
WHEREAS the Oakland County Homeland Security Division and Local Emergency Planning
Committee (LEPC), comprised of representatives from the County, cities, townships, villages, and
stakeholder organizations, has prepared a Hazard Mitigation Plan and reviewed along with community
residents, business owners, schools, local agencies the options to protect people and reduce damage from
hazards; and
WHEREAS the Plan as an official document of the County and the communities therein; and
WHEREAS the LEPC has been established as the County Hazard Mitigation Coordinating
Committee, pursuant to the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (PL-106-390) and associated regulations
(44CFR 210.6); and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
adopts the Hazard Mitigation Plan as an official Plan of Oakland County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the LEPC is established as the permanent community hazard
mitigation planning advisory group.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Homeland Security Division is charged
with the supervising the implementation of the Plan's recommendations within the funding limitations as
provided by Oakland County and other sources.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Homeland Security Division shall
convene the hazard mitigation planning advisory group annually to review the plan, conduct a hazard
analysis, review action item progress, and provide recommendation for new projects.
Chairperson, on behalf of the General Government Committee, I move the adoption of the
foregoing resolution.
GENE/\L GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Motion carried unanimously on a roll call vote.
U,S, Department of Homeland Security
Tzc'gion V
516 South Clark Stroet, Floor 6
Chicgo, IL 60605
NCH 30 2012 FEMA HOME:1 A:Y:1 SrICURIT
Nll
DEC 12 A IC:
Mr, Matt Schnepp
State Hazard Mitigation Officer
Michigan State Police
Emergency Management and Homeland Security Division
4000 Collins Rd
Lansing, MI 48910
Dear MrArrepp:
Thank you for submitting the Oakland County Hazard Mitigation Plan for our review.
The plan was reviewed based on the local plan criteria contained in 44 CFR Part 201, as
authorized by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Oakland County plan met the
required criteria for a multi-jurisdiction hazard mitigation plan. Fonual approval of this
plan is contingent upon the adoption of the current version of the plan by the county and
all participating jurisdictions. Once FEMA Region V receives documentation of
adoption we will send a letter of official approval to your office.
We look forward to receiving the adoption documentation and completing the approval
process for the Oakland County plan,
If you or the community has any questions, please contact Kirstin Kuenzi at (312) 408-
4460.
Sincerely,
6fte4„4„e__
Christine Stack, Director
Mitigation Division
www.ferna.gov
Title of Plan:
Hazard Mitigation Plan
I Date of Plan:
I 7/26/2012
Address:
1200 N, Telegraph Rd., Rldg 47 west
Pontiac, MI 48341
Jurisdiction:
Oakland County, Michigan
Local Point of Contact
ara Stoddard
Title;
Emergency Management Chief
Date; Title:
Local Hazard Mitigation Spciallst
State Reviewer:
Mike Sobocinskl
Date:
11/26/2012
EIVZD Vim-Agar, slate porgx
L C 03 2012
APPENDIX A:
LOCAL MITIGATION PLAN REVIEW TOOL
Emerganoy Mgmt &
Homeland Securily Df
The Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool demonstrates how the Local Mitigation Plan meets
the regulation in 44 CFR §201,6 and offers States and FEMA Mitigation Planners an
opportunity to provide feedback to the community.
• TheFttgulation Checklist provides a summary of FEMA's evaluation of whether the
Plan has addressed all requirements,
• The Plan Assessment identifies the plan's strengths as well as documents areas for
future Improvement,
• The Multi-jurisdiction Surnmat is an optional worksheet that can be used to
document how each jurisdiction met the requirements of the each Element of the
Plan (Planning Process; Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment; Mitigation
Strategy; Plan Review, Evaluation, and Implementation; and Plan Adoption),
The FEMA Mitigation Planner must reference this Local Mitigation Plan Review Guide when
completing the Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool,
ency:
" Oakland County Homeland Security Division
Phone Number:
248-858-5080 Stoddards@oakgov.com
Melia
FEMA Reviewer:
Kirstin Kuenzl
Date Received in FEMA Region (insert
Plan Not Approved
, Plan Approvable Pending Adoption
Title:
Community Planning
Specialist
9/4/2012
X
Plan Approved
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A-1
A-2 Local
SECTION 1:
REGULATION CHECKLIST
INSTRUCTIONS: The Regulation Checklist must be completed by FEMA. The purpose of the
Checklist is to identify the location of relevant or applicable content in the Plan by
Element/sub-element and to determine if each requirement has been 'Met' or 'Not Met.'
The 'Required Revisions' summary at the bottom of each Element must be completed by
FEMA to provide a clear explanation of the revisions that are required for plan approval.
Required revisions must be explained for each plan sub-element that is 'Not Met.' Sub-
elements should be referenced In each summary by using the appropriate numbers (Al, 83,
etc.), where applicable. Requirements for each Element and sub-element are described in
detail In this Plan Review Guide In Section 4, Regulation Checklist.
_
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST Location in Plan
[scalar, rifidhlr Not
RegulatiOn (44 u R •,01 6 Luc .11 rani; 4 tiui i l'idn...) poge number) Met met
ELEMENT A. PLANNING PROCESS
Al. Does the Plan document the planning process, including how it Section 1.1,
was prepared and who was Involved in the process for each Acknowledgements,
Jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(1)) pp. 14-25
A2. Does the Plan document an opportunity for neighboring Section 1.1,
communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard
mitigation activities, agencies that have the authority to regulate
development as well as other interests to be involved in the planning
process? (Requirement §201.6(b)(2))
A. Does the Plan document how the public was involved fn the Section 2.3.5,
planning process during the drafting stage? (Requirement Public Outreach, )(
§201.6(b)(1)) .. - -
A4. Does the Plan describe the review and incorporation of existing Section 2.2.2,
plans, studies, reports, and technical information? (Requirement Existing Plans and
§201.6(b)(3)) _ Pro: rams, pp. 28
AS. Is there discussion of how the community(les) will continue
Section 2.5, Plan
public participation in the plan maintenance process? (Requirement Adaptiim . pp, 35-36
§201.6(c)(4)(iii))
AS. is there a description of the method and schedule for keeping the Section 2.6, Plan
plan current (monitoring, evaluating and Updating the mitigation plan Maintenance, pp.
within a S-year cycle)? (Requirement §201.5(c)(4)(i)) 111
FLEW. T iNIUE ZED REVISIONS
36
,
• ELEMENT B. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT '
itigation Plan Review Tool
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST location in Plan
(5 eCtii:01 andfor Not
Reguration (44 0-1-1, 201L. I orAl iv1111,::,Aliori P1,31P0 paw: number) Met MA
Si. Does the Plan include a description of the type, location, and Section 4.1 -4.
extent of all natural hazards that can affect each jurisdiction(s)? Civil Disturbances-
(Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(1)) Weapons of Mass
Destruction, pp. 45-
106
82. Does the Plan include information on previous occurrences of Section 4, Hazard
hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events for each History, pp. 45
jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2) I)
63, is there a description of each identified hazard's impact on the Section 5.2.1 -
community as well as an overall summary of the community's 5.3.29, Addison
vulnerability for each jurisdiction? (Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)) Township-West
Bloomfield School
District, pp. 1I1-
41
84. Does the Plan address NFIP Insured structures within the Section 4.8.2,
jurisdiction that have been repetitively damaged by floods? Riverine Flooding-
(Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(11)) Repetitive Loss, pp.
65-66
ELEMENT8LfIEQUIRED REVISIONS
-
ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY
-
Cl. Does the plan document each jurisdiction's existing authorities, Section 5.2, I-
policies, programs and resources and its ability to expand on and 5,3.29, Addison
improve these existing policies and programs? (Requirement Township-West
§201.8(c)(3)) Bloomfield School
District, pp. 111-
141
C2. Does the Plan address each jurisdiction's participation in the NFIP r Section 4.8.2, X
and continued compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate? Riverine Flooding-
(Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(11}) NFIP
Participation, pp,
63-64
C3. Does the Plan Include goals to reduce/avoid long-term Section 6.1, Goals
vulnerabilities to the identified hazards? (Requirement and Objectives, pp.
§.201,6(c)(3)(1)) - 155 .....
C4. Does the Plan identify and analyze a comprehensive range of Section 6.3,1, X.
specific mitigation actions and projects for each jurisdiction being Community
considered to reduce the effects of hazards, with emphasis on new Identified
and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement Mitigation
§201.6(c)(3)(11)) Strategies, pp. 157-
186
CS. Does the Plan contain an action plan that describes how the Section 7, Action
actions identified will be prioritized (including cost benefit review), Plans, pp. 199-210
implemented, and administered by each jurisdiction? (Requirement
§201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iiin
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A-3
Not
Met
1, REGULATION CHECKLIST
R*?tilation (44 CR 20) Lf..ycol ivlitivotio)
Location in Plan
ti()11.1fitlirir
pdge iiitinbei*j Met
Section 6,4,
Alternatives
Selected, pp, 195-
198
CO. Does the Plan describe a process by which local governments will
integrate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning
mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans,
when appropriate? (Requirement 5201,6(c)(4)(ii})
ELEMENT C: REgUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT D. PLAN REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND IMPLEMENTATION (applicabl
Only)
o plan updates
Dl. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in development?
(Requirement §201.6(d)(8))
Section 33 & 3.4,
Land Use Patterns
& Transportation
Network, pp. 40-41
Section 6.5,
Recommended
Mitigation Actions,
Pp. 199-201
Section 2.4.1-2.4.3,
Surveys-
Community
Meetings, pp. 32-35
D2. Was the plan revised to reflect progress in local mitigation
efforts? (Requirement §201.6(d)(3)}
D3. Was the plan revised to reflect changes in priorities?
(Requirement §201.6(d)(3))
ELEMENT D: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT E. PLAN ADOPTION
El. Does the Plan include documentation that the plan has been
formally adopted by the governing body of the jurisdiction requestin
approval? (Requirement §201.6(c)(5))
Pending review an
approval
**Joclucles templates
for adoption
E2. For multi-jurisdictional plans, has each jurisdiction requesting N/A
approval of the plan documented formal plan adoption?
(Requirement §201.6(c)(5))
ELEMENT E: REQUIRED REVISIONS
ELEMENT F. ADDITIONAL STATE REQUIREMENTS (OPTIONAL FOR
NOT TO BE COMPLETED BY FEMA)
Fl.
F2,
ATE REVIEWERS ONLY;
A-4 Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool
1. REGULATION CHECKLIST Location in Plan
Regulation (44 CJ R 201 6 !ornl iti,Iii1 Plo9.)
(5,er tint) ,ifulior
page number)
Not
Met Met
ELEMENT F: REQUIRED REVISIONS
itigation Plan Review Tool A-5 Local
SECTION 2:
PLAN ASSESSMENT
A. Plan Strengths and Opportunities for Improvement
This section provides a discussion of the strengths of the plan document and identifies areas
where these could be improved beyond minimum requirements.
Element A: Planning Process
The plan details a wide variety of stakeholder involvement (240 participants) and lists all
jurisdictions involved in plan-making. Representatives from each jurisdiction were present
enabling hazards to be discussed on a community-by-community basis, Oakland County also
utilized input from educational facilities and surrounding school districts. This was
impressive; the diversity of participation methods—induding surveys, interviews,
newsletters, and workshops—was also strong. The plan's advisory committee met 3 times
throughout 2011 with specific written agendas for each meeting (risk analysis, mitigation
strategies, action plan) which kept the process moving in a timely manner.
Element El: Hazard identification and Risk Assessment
The vulnerability assessment and ranking was a large portion of the plan's hazard
identification. Mapping was a heavily used asset to complement these assessments (divided
into hazard summary maps and vulnerability maps), and figures included land use patterns
as well as transportation and development trends. The plan does a good job of projecting
future assessments in terms of transportation, flooding, infrastructure failure, and extreme
temperatures. Other tables and charts are also utilized to visualize mitigation strategy and
community ranking systems. The plan lacks any description of potential dollar losses to
structures; each hazard contains an economic impact statement but this is a more
generalized estimation, For a hazard such as flooding, it is indeed possible to produce these
more specific and precise details.
Element C: Mitigation Strategy
Mitigation goals and objectives from the 2005 hazard plan are described and success rates
for each community's prior strategies are reported. Three goals had been highlighted: to
improve pubtic and private organizational preparedness, to improve public and private
organizational response capabilities, and to improve public education and awareness.
Although these are all important aspects of hazard planning, the afore-mentioned goals are
more preparedness-driven than mitigation-driven. I appreciated that the advisory
committee commented on page 27 that "they reviewed this set of goals during their
November 29, 2011, workshop and determined that the 2005 goals and objectives were
applicable but too vague".
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A-6
Updates to these strategies were selected and prioritized by community. Once again, many
goals are for preparedness (public safety, education, training, etc.) although some such as
building codes, road and driveway repair, and the construction of warming and cooling
centers are mitigation tactics. The plan states that there are 24 new mitigation strategies
but! would not agree due to multiple examples of redundancy; "11. Encourage residents to
create family escape plans and disaster supply kits" is, essentially, the same strategy as "23.
Educate residents to prepare family disaster plans and supply kits". Section 5 details action
items to accomplish these goals as described by funding resources, schedule for
implementation, and further initiatives. The action plan could be stronger, but all bases were
covered. Plan flow was easy to comprehend.
Element D: Plan Update, Evaluation, and Implementation (Plan Updates Only)
Constant attention must be made towards a vision of community resilience. This Is written
as an update for a 2005 Hazard Mitigation Plan, although In order to be truly considered an
update a plan must be reviewed, resubmitted, and reapproved every five years (2010).
Oakland County does at/ne Job in the 2012 HMP of evaluating their past plan and then
incorporating positive aspects of it, while reprioritizing items that are unnecessary or
unfinished. Although, I did not see any documentation of annual reviews or committee
involvement the years of 2006-2010 so 1am wondering if these reviews took place. This new
plan states in Section 2.6 Plan Maintenance that the Oakland County Homeland Security
Division staff as well as the Local Emergency Planning Committee will periodically review
this plan for changes during implementation which is great.
B. Resources for Implementing Your Approved Plan
For your benefit, I recommend a more succinct description of cost under each action item.
Currently it states how costs will accumulate (staff time, trainings, mileage, supplies, etc.)
but not a dollar amount. It might be helpful for you to delineate cost so that you know how
HMA funding can assist- as well as how other Federal agencies can get involved.
Local Mitigation Plan Review Tool A-7
Resolution #13004 January 23, 2013
Moved by Dwyer supported by McGillivray the resolutions on the amended Consent Agenda be adopted.
AYES: Dwyer, Gershenson, Gingell, Gosselin, Hatchett, Hoffman, Jackson, Matis, McGillivray,
Middleton, Quarles, Runestad, Scott, Taub, Weipert, Woodward, Zack, Bosnic, Crawford. (19)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the resolutions on the amended Consent Agenda were
adopted.
1 HEHL,r: .-r-RovEmos FIACA..UTION
CHIEF Dc.PUT' COUNTY 2;001.JTIVE
ACTING PUF: kIT TO MCL 45.559A (7)
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lisa Brown, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and
accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on January 23,
2013, with the original record thereof now remaining in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the County of Oakland at
Pontiac. Michigan this 23 rd day of January, 2013.
Xd-gee/
Lisa Brown, Oakland County