Save for Title Page
Fiscal, Technical, Administrative and Political Capabilities
Download 4.32 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Table 79: Assessment of Local Capability
- 5.2.1 Technical Capability
- 5.2.2 Recommendations
- 5.2.3 Fiscal Capability
- 5.2.4 Recommendations
5.2 Fiscal, Technical, Administrative and Political CapabilitiesAs part of the capability assessment, each jurisdiction self-assessed their unique technical, fiscal, administrative, and the political will to conduct mitigation projects.The Assessment of Local Capability Table provides an overview of each jurisdiction’s rankings.An “L” indicates limited capability, an “M” indicates moderate capability, and an “H” indicates high capability.The results of the self-assessment are listed below. Table 79: Assessment of Local Capability
Note:Scores of High, Moderate and Limited were determined by a self-assessment of the jurisdictions. 5.2.1 Technical CapabilityTechnical Capability is defined as possessing the skills and tools needed for making decisions regarding mitigation activities, programs, and policies. The concept of “technical” was left to the participants to self-define; however, several examples were provided to assist the participant in completing the survey. For instance, having accesses to and/or being able to use geographic information systems (GIS) and database management capabilities would be an indication of possessing the technical capabilities needed to make informed decisions regarding mitigation activities.Not having the ability to manage grants and not having a working knowledge of mitigation programs would be an indication of not possessing the technical capabilities needed to make informed decisions regarding mitigation programs or policies. The analyses of the responses to the capability assessment indicated that there is generally a Limited technical capability; however, as the size of the jurisdiction increases (Glasgow and Valley County being the largest two jurisdictions) so does their capabilities.The result of the technical capability assessment highlights the notion that the existing capability of most jurisdictions could be improved. 5.2.2 RecommendationsLocal Mitigation Action Plans should include strategies that will strengthen the technical capabilities of the jurisdictions and county.While there is a wide range of technical resources across the county and municipal governments, the development of a systematic protocol for sharing resources could significantly increase the level of technical capability to analyze natural hazards and develop meaningful actions to reduce their impact. The development of regional mitigation actions could also be used to assist in this effort.In all, Valley County and its jurisdictions should rely on its existing partners and local agencies to ensure those with minimal or limited resources are successful. 5.2.3 Fiscal CapabilityThe fiscal capability is defined as having the fiscal resources available to implement mitigation policies and projects. It was noted that fiscal capability might take the form of grants received, locally based revenue sources, or other means to fund mitigation activities. For instance, the costs associated with mitigation policy and project implementation varies widely. In some cases, policies are tied primarily to staff costs associated with the creation and monitoring of a given program. In other cases, money is linked to a project, such as property acquisition that can require a substantial commitment from local, state, and federal funding sources. The analyses of the responses to the capability assessment indicated that there is a moderate to limited fiscal capability at the county and respective municipal levels. Fiscal capability seemed to be influenced by the jurisdictional population in that largest jurisdiction (Valley County) seemed to rate its ability higher than less populated jurisdictions. (NOTE: Population size is not always correlated with risk. The risk of a smaller population can be equal to or even greater than the risk of more populated areas.However, more populated jurisdictions typically have larger tax bases and/or more resources to address their risk). 5.2.4 RecommendationsTo evaluate the fiscal capabilities needed to successfully implement mitigation policies and projects, jurisdictions should ask several basic questions:
In order to implement mitigation projects and policies, some monetary commitment, or staff resources will be required. Resources may take the form of a non-federal match requirement or the cost associated with staff time devoted to mitigation policy development and implementation. County and municipal governments should consider combining financial and staff resources to achieve efficiencies in implementing mitigation activities to address hazards across the region.It is important to consider that hazards tend to impact regions and not just individual jurisdictions; thus, combining resource is often a benefit to multiple jurisdictions. Finally, if local governments have access to ongoing sources of revenue, a comprehensive and sustained effort can be achieved. Jurisdictions are encouraged to create mitigation based revenue resources, for example, a storm-water management fee or the development of a budgetary line item that specifically addresses hazard mitigation could be adopted. Download 4.32 Mb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||