Item 26 - Updated Hazard Mitigation Plan

Home Browse Search

Hazard Mitigation Plan | 2022 Mitigation Strategies - 105 - Grants come from a wide variety of sources – some annually and other triggered by events like disasters. Whatever the source, the City uses the General Fund to identify successful grants as funding sources. Q&A | ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY | C4c. Q: Do the identified mitigation actions and projects have an emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii)) A: See Building and Infrastructure below. Building and Infrastructure This addresses the issue of whether or not a particular action item results in the reduction of the effects of hazards on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. Q&A | ELEMENT C. MITIGATION STRATEGY | C5a. Q: Does the plan explain how the mitigation actions and projects will be prioritized (including cost benefit review)? (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iv)); (Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii)) A: See Benefit/Cost Ratings and Priority Rating below. Benefit/Cost Ratings The benefits of proposed projects were weighed against estimated costs as part of the project prioritization process. The benefit/cost analysis was not of the detailed variety required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant programs. A less formal approach was used because some projects may not be implemented for up to 10 years, and associated costs and benefits could change dramatically in that time. Therefore, a review of the apparent benefits versus the apparent cost of each project was performed. Parameters were established for assigning subjective ratings (high, medium, and low) to the costs and benefits of these projects. Cost ratings were defined as follows: High: Existing jurisdictional funding will not cover the cost of the action item so other sources of revenue would be required. Medium: The action item could be funded through existing jurisdictional funding but would require budget modifications. Low: The action item could be funded under existing jurisdictional funding. Benefit ratings were defined as follows: High: The action item will provide short-term and long-term impacts on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. Medium: The action item will have long-term impacts on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. Low: The action item will have only short-term impacts on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property.