FLOOD05748 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Prior 10 Ihe 1993 major !load evenI. Ihe Missouri Slate Emergency ManagemenI Agency (SEMA) had, for unknown reasons. passed the responsibility for tbe Hazard Mitigation GranI Program (HMGP) to the DeparIment of Natural Resources. With Ihe 1993 !lood event. Ihat responsibility was returned to SEMA. Arguably, iI sbould always remain the responsibiliIy of SEMA. The posiIion is enhanced by Ihe fact Ihat Missouri has funded a State Hazard Mitigation Officer PosiIion within the SEMA personnel structure. With thaI as an aside. the SIaIe was faced with an unprecedented task of administering a hazard mitigation program that eventually exceeded $100 million. The purpose of Ihis overview is to provide a narrative concerning how the various processes and policies were developed and put into place. As the individual and public assis- tance efforts during Ihe later summer of 1993 progressed, iI became obvious IhaI Ihe Stale would have significanI funding for HMGP activiIies. An early estimaIe was $10-12 million. AtIhe same time. Ihe U.S. Congress began 10 address various flood assistance issues wiIh one of the major efforts being the enactment of the "Volkmer Bill'" which changed the formula for HMGP fund- ing. That bill became law in mid-De- cember 1993, and the HMGP fund forcasI was suddenly $30 million. The awesome HMGP task was now even a greater challenge. Following this realization. the Stale's firsI overt act was to send a let- ter to known eligible applicants inform- ing them of Ihe program with a further commenI requesting communi lies to submit project applications. No further guidance was provided - no sIandard ap- plication or direcIion regarding the Slate's prioriIies was given. Conse- quently, a "flood of requests'. in vary- Page 4 ing deIail was received. Project scopes ranged from very large sIructural projecIs, including levees. storm wa- ter drainage sysIems. and a buyout project for one dwelling. The total project requests exceeded $300 mil- lion. The dollar amount and diversity of the projecIs increased to a signifi- cant degree Ihe already difficult task of determining which projects to pur- sue. During laIe 1993 and early 1994, FEMA Director James Lee Witt and others began to place emphasis on ac- quisiIion of flood damaged property. Given the fact that the State only had $30 million available, and that buyout projections were exceeding that figure by a three to one margin, the decision was made to focus the HMGP effort on per- manent primary residen- tial structures. Necessity forced the exclusion of business properties, vaca- tion homes, mobile homes, and building elevations. A review of the projecIs received re- vealed Ihat Ihey included requests for "buyouts" thaI would cosI $100 mil- lion. The "fog facIor.. was now being diminished to some degree and a logi- cal approach to project approval emerged. All Ihe eligible applicants who were proposing acquisiIion were told 10 revise their applications for residen- Iial buyouts only and to be prepared to travel to Jefferson City to presenI their applications. In hindsighI, SEMA has since determined and followed a bet- Ier procedure wherein SEMA person- nel travel to each buyout IocaIion to work the process. ApplicanIs also were informed that all projects for other Ihan residential buyouts would be passed on to Missouri's Department of Economic Development for subsequent resolu- tion in Ihe event that funds should be- come available through that channel at a laIer date. Beginning in very late December 1993. and in January and February 1994. meetings were scheduled with the affected communities to review projecIs for possible funding recom- mendaIions to FEMA Region VII. These meeIings were hosted by a very small select commillee empowered by the Administration 10 review all project proposals and make specific Tecom- mendations to the Governor's Office. Commillee members included Mr. Dick Moore. former Executive Direc- lor of Ihe Missouri Housing Develop- ment Commission; Mr. Dick Gross. Ihen Director of Ihe Missouri Housing DevelopmenI Commission; Mr. Terry Martin. CommuniIy Development Block Grant Coordinator; and Mr. Buck Katt. SEMA. and the buyout project coordinaIor for Missouri. This small but elfecIive commillee listened . to all proposals and took acIion in sev- eral ways on each project. i The commillee recommended that some projecIs be forwarded to FEMA for funding without modification. This recommendation was applied 10 projects that were "clean."' meaning projecIs that met all necessary criteria including a reasonable cost benefit. (AI Ihat time, FEMA had no cost benelit model guidance available; the State of Missouri created its own to gain aIleast a basic insighI regarding the cosI ben- efit for specific projects. Since that time, FEMA has developed several com pUler-based models and continues 10 reline them.)