2019_KittitasCountyHMP_Volume 1_For Adoption

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 18. AREA-WIDE MITIGATION INITIATIVES 18-1 CHAPTER 18. AREA-WIDE MITIGATION INITIATIVES 18.1. SELECTED COUNTY-WIDE MITIGATION INITIATIVES The planning partners and the steering committee determined that some initiatives from the mitigation catalogs could be implemented to provide hazard mitigation benefits countywide. Table ES-1-1 lists the recommended countywide initiatives, the lead agency for each, and the proposed timeline. The parameters for the timeline are as follows: • Short Term = to be completed in 1 to 5 years • Long Term = to be completed in greater than 5 years • Ongoing = currently being funded and implemented under existing programs. For this update, an effort was made to look more closely at the ongoing activities, in the context of the five - year planning horizon of this plan. The mitigation initiatives from the 2012 plan were reviewed by the full committee for status and progress made. The steering committee decided that all seven previous initiatives should be continued in the 2019 plan update. Table 18-2 shows the status of each of the 2012 mitigation initiatives at the time of the 2019 plan update. 18.2. BENEFIT/COST REVIEW 44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan according to a benefit/cost evaluation of the proposed projects and their associated costs (Section 201.6.c.3iii). 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 other HMA programs . Alternatively, 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 funding will not cover the cost of the project; implementation would require new revenue through an alternative source (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). • Medium—The project could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re- apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the project would have to be spread over multiple years. • Low—The project could be funded under the existing budget. The project is part of or can be part of an ongoing existing program. Benefit ratings were defined as follows: • High—Project will provide an immediate reduction of risk exposure for life and property. • Medium—Project will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure for life and property, or project will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure for property.