On average, every $1 spent on mitigation results in a $6 return of avoided future losses. The National Institute of Building Sciences' Multihazard Mitigation Council announces a 6:1 mitigation Benefit Cost Ratio.
The purpose of HMGP is to help communities implement hazard mitigation measures following a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration in their areas. The key purpose is to enact mitigation measures that reduce the risk of loss of life and property from future disasters.
The 404 funding is used to provide protection to undamaged parts of a facility or to prevent or reduce damages caused by future disasters.
The State receives a portion of the Total Federal share of the declared disaster damage amount (20%), which it uses to fund projects anywhere in the State, regardless of where the declared disaster occurred or the disaster type.
The entire state — not just declared counties — may qualify for 404 mitigation projects.
404 grant funding may be used in conjunction with 406 mitigation funds to bring an entire facility to a higher level of disaster resistance, when only portions of the facility were damaged by the current disaster event.
The 404 grant is managed by the State under funding provided for in the Stafford Act. Section 404 mitigation measures are funded under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
All subapplicants for HMGP must have a FEMA-approved Mitigation Plan at the time of obligation of funds for mitigation projects.
If your facility suffers earthquake or hurricane damage, flood damage, or other destruction from disaster, and is eligible for permanent repairs, you may also be eligible for additional cost shared assistance under Section 406 of the Stafford Act for cost-effective measures that will prevent future damage to your facility. FEMA strongly encourages you to consider hazard mitigation measures as part of the repair and restoration of your facility. While your basic funding will return your facilities to their pre-disaster design, a hazard mitigation plan will improve on the pre-disaster design (upgrades required to meet applicable codes and standards are part of your basic eligible restoration work, not considered as hazard mitigation measures).
A hazard mitigation proposal is a written description and cost estimate of what it will take to repair the damage in such a way as to prevent it from happening again. The proposal is submitted with the Project Worksheet and describes in detail the additional work and cost associated with the mitigation measure.
Mitigation measures can be technically complex and must be thoroughly evaluated for feasibility, therefore you may want to ask your FEMA Public Assistance representative for technical assistance in identifying hazard mitigation measures or in preparing a proposal.
Hazard mitigation measures must meet one of the following tests of cost‐effectiveness:
Cost no more than 15% of the total eligible cost of eligible repair work for the damaged facility.
Cost no more that 100% of the total eligible cost of eligible repair work and on the list of FEMA‐approved mitigation measures.
Have a benefit‐cost ratio of equal to or greater than 1.0.
A Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) is an important part of the funding of a mitigation measure. tidal basin has the expertise to assist organizations in completing a BCA and the overall mitigation applicant.
A BCA is a method for determining the potential beneficial effects of a mitigation measure and comparing them to the cost of that measure. The result desired is a reduction in future damages from future hazards.
The BCA may also be used to evaluate alternative projects to determine the best alternative. The end result of a BCA is a benefit cost ratio (BCR), which is derived from a project’s total net benefit, divided by its total cost. The BCR is a numerical expression of the cost-effectiveness of the project. BCR’s of 1.0 or greater have more benefits than their costs, and are therefore considered cost-effective.
FEMA will only consider funding hazard mitigation measures that are cost-effective and are demonstrated through an approved FEMA methodology such as FEMA’s BCA toolkit, available on the FEMA website.
Discover in detail how our team of professionals is playing an instrumental role in helping hundreds of organizations, governments, communities, not-for-profits, and private sector clients prepare and maximize their financial recovery sooner from the worst disasters.
Your knowledge of the complex governmental regulations and equally complex insurance and adjusting issues really helped the County maximize the public assistance that was available after all of these disasters. You delivered what you promised and we are confident in your ability and the ability of your firm to provide these services fully on a technical and professional level, yet be able to translate in a clear and concise manner the intricate and sometimes subjective FEMA regulations which we could not have done without you.Without hesitation we would recommend you and your firm to anyone that is faced with the processing of large and complex disaster loss claims.
Salvatore R. Zappulla
Division Director Monroe County Budget and Finance - Monroe County, Florida
I would like to take this time to personally thank the Liaison staff for the remarkable job and the accomplishments performed during recovery efforts associated with FEMA 1589 DR NY. ...The total goal achieved was nothing less than maximizing all eligible costs in the best interest of the applicant....One strong asset for making recovery efforts a success is having your staff on our team.
John J. Fink
Recovery Supervisor - New York State Emergency Management Office
Adjusters International’s involvement helped reverse FEMA’s original denial of funding to full reimbursement for the repairs. In the end, Adjusters International’s determination of eligibility allowed the applicant to secure over $14 million in FEMA recovery funding for the facility.
A lack of adequate resources caused the situation to unfold the way it did in Slidell. Due to overburdened FEMA officials and insurance company adjusters, a number of projects were overlooked or underestimated.