Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Hazard Mitigation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Midvale adopts county hazard mitigation plan, flags earthquake as top risk

Midvale City Council · September 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Midvale City Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2025‑R‑54 to approve the Salt Lake County Multi‑Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which highlights earthquake as the city’s top risk and recommends seismic retrofits, flood mitigation, expanded outreach and cybersecurity investments to maintain federal funding eligibility.

Emergency Management Planner Brian Buckhout presented the Midvale Hazard Mitigation Annex as part of the 2025 Salt Lake County Multi‑Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and urged council adoption to preserve eligibility for federal mitigation funds.

"Earthquake poses the most significant risk to Midvale," Buckhout said, noting that many structures predate modern seismic standards and that utilities and transportation corridors are vulnerable. He outlined priority strategies including seismic retrofitting of critical facilities and older unreinforced masonry buildings, flood mitigation along the Jordan River corridor, expanded public education around drought and extreme weather, improved emergency sheltering capacity, and investments in cybersecurity and infrastructure resilience.

Council Member Heidi Robinson moved to approve Resolution No. 2025‑R‑54; Council Member Paul Glover seconded and the council adopted the plan by unanimous roll call vote. Buckhout and staff emphasized that formal adoption is required to remain eligible for federal hazard mitigation funding that could support city projects over the next five years.

The adopted plan positions city leaders to integrate mitigation priorities into capital planning, land use decisions and emergency preparedness work; no additional funding allocations were enacted at the meeting.