Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7. States which seem willing to take sole responsibility for financing mitigation do so primarily for <br />remedial measures. Long-range preventive solutions are often left for more complex financial <br />arrangements. Therefore, communities at the local level must recognize the financial commitment <br />involved to plant and manage municipal trees. <br /> <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br />. <br /> <br />8. States often provide a variety of financial assistance including low-interest loans for partial financing <br />of mitigation projects. State government can also help to fund projects which are not eligible for <br />federal assistance. <br /> <br />9. Most state and private grants require a cost-share or funding match in the form of cash or in-kind <br />services. <br /> <br />10. Government and private enterprise may have numerous formulas for cost sharing. <br /> <br />E. Monitoring <br /> <br />Mitigation is often confounded by conflicts of interest. Monitoring reduces these conflicts by providing <br />compliance, enforcement and inspection methodologies. Monitoring also requires the coordination and <br />goodwill among all agencies and organizations involved in the mitigation process. <br /> <br />1. Local agencies have the responsibility to monitor localized events such as floodplain inundation <br />from a single site or land use controls in a valley. However, they frequently lack the technical <br />expertise to detect new or unexpected hazards. <br /> <br />2. State agencies monitor events which have potentially broad state impact, but sometimes fail to <br />recognize that hazards extend across neighboring states. <br /> <br />3. Federal agencies monitor hazards with regional impact and those involving the national interest. <br />Federal monitoring experience is inconsistent from a local vantage point since techniques for <br />monitoring differ. <br /> <br />4. Whatever the level of enforcement, monitoring requires coordination among numerous agencies <br />and organizations. <br /> <br />s. When different levels of government have similar goals, they can share resources. Such sharing of <br />resources and responsibilities can lead to improved efficiency and intergovernmental rapport. <br /> <br />6. New missions and goals are sometimes established by one level of government and are simply <br />relayed to another unit without new resources, personnel, or funds for implementation. This <br />creates intergovernmental tensions and unenforceable rules. <br /> <br />7. It is common for more than one level of government to have corresponding laws and regulations, <br />largely because of the initiative of federal rule makers. Gaps exist in coordinating federal rule- <br />making with that of state and local government. <br /> <br />122 <br />