2019_KittitasCountyHMP_Volume2_For Adoption

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER 1. PLANNING PARTNER PARTICIPATION 4 – Low Priority—Project will mitigate the risk of a hazard, benefits exceed costs, funding has not been secured, project is not grant eligible, and time line for comp letion is long term (5 to 10 years). These priority definitions are dynamic and can change from one category to another based on changes to a parameter such as availability of funding. For example, a project might be assigned a medium priority because of the uncertainty of a funding source, but be changed to high once a funding source has been identified. The prioritization schedule for this plan will be reviewed and updated as needed annually through the plan maintenance strategy. Benefit/Cost Review 44 CFR requires the prioritization of the action plan to emphasize a benefit/cost analysis of the proposed actions. Because some actions may not be implemented for up to 10 years, benefit/cost analysis was qualitative and not of the detail required by FEMA for project grant eligibility under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. 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 costs and benefits as follows: – Cost ratings: – High—Existing funding levels are not adequate to cover the costs of the proposed action; implementation would require an increase in revenue through an alternative s ource (for example, bonds, grants, and fee increases). – Medium—The action could be implemented with existing funding but would require a re- apportionment of the budget or a budget amendment, or the cost of the action would have to be spread over multiple years. – Low—The action could be funded under the existing budget. The action is part of or can be part of an existing, ongoing program. – Benefit ratings: – High—The action will have an immediate impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property. – Medium—The action will have a long-term impact on the reduction of risk exposure to life and property or will provide an immediate reduction in the risk exposure to property. – Low—Long-term benefits of the action are difficult to quantify in the short term. Using this approach, projects with positive benefit versus cost ratios (such as high over high, high over medium, medium over low, etc.) are considered cost-beneficial and are prioritized accordingly. It should be noted that for many of the strategies identified in this action plan, funding might be sought under FEMA’s HMGP or PDM programs. Both of these programs require detailed benefit/cost analysis as part of the application process. These analyses will be performed on projects at the time of application preparation. The FEMA benefit-cost model will be used to perform this review. For projects not seeking financial assistance from grant programs that require this sort of analysis, the Partners reserve the right to define “benefits” according to parameters that meet their needs and the goals and objectives of this plan. 1.4. FINAL COVERAGE UNDER THE PLAN Of the 19 committed planning partners, 12 fully met the participation requirements specified by the Steering Committee. The principal requirement not met by the other partners was completion of the jurisdictional annex template following the workshops. Eighteen of the partners attended the workshop, but only 12 subsequently submitted completed templates. Only those 12 jurisdictions are included in this volume and