HomeMy WebLinkAboutlist of Proposed hazard mitigation projectCity of Miami
Prioritized List of Proposed Hazard Mitigation Projects
Number
ProjectName
Priority < Risk
Cost
Total
1
Hazardous Materials Response Units
30 45
23
98'
2
3
Debris Removal
Public Education and Information Distribution
30 41
28 41
25
24
96
93
4
5
6
7
Flagami Storm Water Drainage Imrpovements
Storm Shelter for Families of City Employees
Citywide Fueling System and Underground
Storage Tank Removal •
30 45,
28 41
30, 38,
18
23
24
93
92
92
Storage Facilities for Critical Equipment 30 41 20 91
8
Harden Fire Facilities
28 39
24
91
9
Clean and Dredge Canals and Waterways
30 39
22
91
10
Harden Neighborhood Enhancement Team
Centers
28 38
24
90
11
12
Miami Riverside Center Building Improvements
Tree Trimming
28 38
30 41
24
9
90
90'
13
14
15
Mobile Command Vehicles
Backup for Essential City Computer Systems
Backup System for City Communications
28 ' 36
28 38
28 38
f•....x4.3,: to 25
23
23
89
89
89
16
17
18
19
20
21
VP
Portable Pumps and Generators
Community Emergency Response Teams
Loans for Private Owners to Improve Seawalls
and Stabilize Shoreline
Replace and Improve City -owned Seawalls
28 35
28 34
29 35
30 35
25
24
22
20
88
86
86
85
Portable Traffic Control Signs
Storm Shutters for City Buildings •
30 32
28 41
23
16
85
85
22
Storrn Water Drainage Facilities for Bell Meade
30 35
19
84
23
24
25
26
Floodproofing First floor of Main Police Building
'Low Power Portable AM Radio Stations
Protect Vital City Records
G.S.A. Motorpool Garage Doors
2$ 31
28 32
28
38
28 38
24
22
15
15
83
82
81
81�
27
Anchor Park Fixtures
28 38
15
81
28
Automated Bar Screen for Orange Bowl Pump
Station
30 29
18
77
29
Power Backup for Lift Stations
25 35
15
75
30
31
Study to Reduce Erosion on Virginia Key Beach
Harden Dinner Key Manna Dock Master's
Office
25 22
28 24
Study Potential Fire Hazards on City -owned
,? 11a• y•r .
Average Scores:
28
36
24
17
.71
69
-Jrn
21
gqr
85
September 1999
Page B-1
Mitgation Measure:
Hazardous Materials Response Units
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
PRIORITY 30%
2
3
Appropriateness of the Measure
Community Acceptance
Environmental impact
Scoring Criteria Score
Points
40%
10%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMSJ goals and plans
3 - Medium: Does not to to an identted vulnerability, but is needed
1- Low: Doss not tie to any LMS goal or plan
6 • High: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most; may create burdens
1 • Low: Not fikeiy to be endorsed by the community
5
5
200
50
15%
5 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
5
75
4
5
Legislation
Consistent with City Priorities
Parameter Subtotal
PRICORITY SLID TOTA1.
10%
25%
6 - High: Consistent with existing taws and rags
3 - Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1-Low Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5 - High
3-Medium
1 - Low
5
5
50
125
100%
sum of parameter scores; mans 500
i•,,rrr, r,i I,.rr.rnrr:cr 7,r uru:.} {m.rxnnrrrn F..1 :r,l, •,r IC)
I(Jt77'„
RISK REDGICTIgN POT T SL : ...
::,.4fi%
1
Scope of Benefits
_ .
20%
6 - High: Benefits beyond City boundaries
3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low Benefits 3 or more Net Grtter areas
5
100
2
Importance of Benefits ...
r. ;
•
20%
_, a, H,, . _.
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3-Medium: Needed for otherservias
1 • Low No aigniflant implications
5
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
•
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic. loss of power. delays) avoided
3 • Moderate nuisances avoided
1 -None
5
50 .
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
5 -Significant economic loss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1- Minimal economic Foes averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
5 -High: >300.000;.opts
3-Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1-Low c10,000 people
5
75 -
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 -High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 -Medium: Damages from one outer went
1- Low No previous damages
5
100
Parameter Subtotal
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
100%
sum of parameter scores; man -
C.un, ,rl n.�r.rn,rl, r .r ni.• J f�+rr.inr�rrn . )
500 ., 500
...
Ct�ST ,; ,
f X ..
.
1
Estimated Costs"
20%
S0
i. initial Cost
• 75%
6 - High: SO to S500.000
3 - Moderate: S5001( to SWM
1- Law: ?35M
3
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Coats
25%
6 - Low costs
3 -Moderate costs
1. High costs
1
25
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 - Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 - Low: Ratio is less titan t
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants car matching funds
3 - Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 - Low No funding sources or matching fund. am identified
5
i0
4
Affordability
30%
5 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project a somewhat affordede
1 • LowProject is wry costly for the City
5
150 1
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max = 500
(•,iun ut p,rr.nnr:lcr !,acre.) . (rn,r.rrnurrr I:u,•.rtd, ,coil
450
'gyp'',
r,..• .:�w.ra�.: •,•: :r� -�r:� f �srW. �.:�.�. .r.-ter-. •.. l r 14111 umrdrmow Uum1UrIB reacts
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighting.Factor
Points
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
COST SUBTOTAL
30%
45%
26%
100%
100%
90%
30
45
23
TOTAL
September 1999
10 0'4
98
Page 3.2
Mitgation Measure:
Debris Removal
Parameter
Weighting
Factor_
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
_
40%
6 • High:" Reduces vulnerabiny and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and pans
3 - Medium: Dces not tie to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1 - Low: Does not be to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
12
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 . Med um: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1-Low Not likely to be endorsed by e. community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6-Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
5
75
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Constant with existing laws and reps
1- Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1 - Low Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
_
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
5 - High
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
• 125
Parameter Subtotal
PRIORI f Y SUB TOTAL.
_
100% sum of parameter scores; max* 500
(:,um LA p,Ii.r .It:r ..r.ur,:'.,) i (in.L.,nwrn I„, ..011,• ., ,111.1
500
10C1';L
R1;1(REDCICTION,POTENTW4.:';>
45% i',
r: :_', ;:
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City boundaries
3 • Medium: Benefits 4 or mare NET Center areas
1- Lour Benefits 3 or frier NET Center areas .
3
. ..
60
2
Importance of Benoit&
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 - Medium: Needed for other services
1 • Low: No significant implications
5
_ ..
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - significant nuisances (e•4, traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 -Moderate nuisances avoided
1 • None
5
_
50
- 4
Economic Effects-
v 15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1 • Minimal .anomie lose averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: 300,000 people
3 -Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1 • Low 410,600 people
5
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
•
y1-Low:
5 - Hlgh: Deniage from multiple previous Sweden
3 -Medium: Damages from one other event
No previous damages -
5
100 -
.
Parameter Subtotal
Ris ( REt J ; 1IOrI POTENTIAL
100% sum of parameter scores; max a 500
r .u,n : t;,,r,rrn,•:, r 1.1,..) : (,,,,r.,r,,.,r„ p,,: ,,.i».
460
>244.
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
100
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: St) to S500.000
1- Moderate: $500K to SSM
1 -Low: 45M
5
375
5M . aintenance/Op.rating
Cosh
_
25%
6 - Low costs•
3 -Moderate casts
1- High costs
5
125
2
Benefit / Cast Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 - Low: Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or mattering funds
3 • Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 -Low No funding sources or matching funds are identified
5
50
4
_
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project 4 easily affordable
3 -Meehan: Project is somewhat affordable
1 - Low: Pn:jact is very costly for the City
5
150
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max ; 500
(:.I,rn n1 p;v.rrnulcr !,curt.,:,) , irrI . I,LWrrl po5•,,blu',Tern,')
500
1t}0'S6
• k•111RFaTwrT m�' am Comnnewn,ne %MA. i1�!'nnnsN 11a{srniniers: instal an4_TsnnMnanPwrnnwrohna,�ns.1�i
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
100%
30
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
92%
41
COST SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
September 19g9
25%
100%
100%
25
Sb
Page B-3
Mitgation Measure:
Public Education and Information Distribution
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRJOR1TY • 30%-
1
r
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces wtnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and pans
3-Medium: Does not be to an idenlifed vulnerability. but is needed
1- Low: Does not lie to any LMS Qoal or plan
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
5 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1 • Low Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
5 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
3
45
4
Legislation
• •
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 - Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1- Low: Conflicts v dttr existing pans and policies
5
•
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
6 - High
3-Medium
1- Low
5
125
Aarame.ar Subtotal
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL.
100% sum of parameter scores; maul a 500 470
(:;urn cl p;uumtrler t.co:rr) . (rrr.uxirnurn p,,:.•, i..,: rrro I G 1..,,
w.aKREDUc7IQti.'PoTEf+ IALi
r45..44..:':i:
.. :: . ', _
1
SCope of Benefits
20%
'5 - High: Benefits beyond City boundanes
3 - Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low: Benefits 3 or fever NET Center areas
. 3
80
2
Importance of Benefits ..,:
20% ...
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1 • Low No significant implications
5
.
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 -Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1 -Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Beinellt
15%
6 - High: >3000,000 people
3 -Medium; 10,000 to 300,000 people
1- Low: (10,000 people
5
75
8
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Carnage from multiple previous disasters
3 -Medium: Carriages from one other event
1- Low No window damages
5
too
Parameter Subtotal.
PIS N. PEpuC lIONJ POTENTIAL
100% sum of parameter scores; max ■ 500
r,rr, r,1 ir,rr,rrn, I, r :,,-,,.• .l ,rrr.r.rr,,,rrr r:, . r r- .., ,
' 480
..
—
1
Eedmated goats•
20%
fro
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: S0 to S500,030
3 - Moderate: S800K to S5M
1- Low >S5M
3
225
ii.Maintenancei/Operating
Costs
25%
6- Low costs
3 - Modente costs
1 -High costs
5
125
2
Banellt 1 Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than a
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1- Lour Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or rnatching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds available
1- Low No fuming sources or matching funds are identified
5
50
4
Affordability
30%
6 -High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1 - Low Project is very costly for the City
5
150 ,
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL_
100% sum of parameter scores: max = 500
c.rrnr of p,,r,irnulr•r su.nrrti) ' (rn.r.irnurn }nr.-. bI.• •.1 nn .
470
IL I'L,
Ita 6ua 01q iulir4l
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
94%
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL,
45%
92%
41
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
94%
24
TOTAL
September 1999
100'S,,
93
Page B-4
1
1
Mitgatian Measure:
Flagami Storm Water Drainage lmrpovements
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30•/.
1
Appropnateness of the Measure-
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and piens
3 - Medium: Does not be to an idsrrti ad vulnerability, but is needed
1- Low Does not tie to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may mete Widens
1- Low: Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental impact
15%
•
6 • Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
5
75
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rigs
3 • Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1 • Low Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
6 - High
3-Medium
1-Low
5
125
Parameter Subtotal
PRIORITY SIJBTOTAI.
100% sum of parameter scores; max ■ 500
i'.urn ill luu.unrtrl :.cul,c,l . (ni.i,rn„In pre...d,hr :., ,m,'1
500
1{1(1%L
R{$I ..........................:•.::4,4$1/:
;
- ':
7
1
Seeps of Benefits
20% .
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City bounding
3-Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1 • Low Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
5
100
•
2
importance of Benefits
20%
•
6 • High: Needed for essential services • ,
3 - Medium: Needed for other services '
1 • Low: No significant implications
:.i 5 __..
.. 100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
' 10%
6 • Slgntflcant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 -Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic ices averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1-Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: >300,000 mope
3 -Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 made
1 -Law e10,000 people
5
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
5 - Hlgh: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 -Medium: Damages from one other event
1-Low: No ptwrtaus damages
5
100
parameter Subtotal
RISK. HE -DUG howl i-'OTErI TIAt
100%
sum of parameter scorer max ee 500
500
t
T;< ..
:26.
.
1
Estimated Costa'
20%
30
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: 30 to $500.000
3 -Moderate: 5500K to S5M
1-Low: >SSM
1
75
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 -Moderate costs
1 -High costs
3
75
2
Benefit 1 Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 end 4
1-Low: Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - Hlgh: Readily avalable through grants ar matching funds
3-Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 -Low No funding sources or matching funds are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
5 - Hlgh: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1- Low: Project is vary costly far the City
3
90
e
Parameter Subtotal
cost SUBTOTAL
100%
sum of parameter scores:
°,urn ❑l fi.fr,,rncl.•r acureol (ttu.I, rI rt pm......: , Jo. 1
max a 500
350
r'4`C,
• z r-n♦ n2.trt..n,wzl 1wl .n n,n.
1 .
Weighting Factor
Points
PR)ORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
100%
30
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
46%
100%
45
70%
COST SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
September 1909
26%
100%
18
93
Page 9-5
Mitgalion Measure:
Storm Shelter for Families of City Employees
Parameter
weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
L
Points
PRIORITY 30.'h -
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 • High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
5
200
(LMS) goals and clans
3 - Medium: Doss not be to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1 • Low. Does not tie to any LMS soil or plan
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire conmunty
3 Medium: Endorsed by burdens
- 5
50
• moot may create
1 • Low: Not likely to be endorsed by the community
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3
45
3 - No effect
1 • Adverse effect
4
Legeislion
10%
6 - High: Consistent with esiibng laws and rags
5
50 •
3 - Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1 • Low Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
Consistent with City Priorities '
25%
6 • Nigh
5
125
3 • Medium
1-Low
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter scores; max a 500 470
PRiORIfYs1ifiTC)rill
... ., .,
RIS*CREDUCTIOffrOTENT1AL
:.,.`:A&Ya ..-.-
. `'. ... ,,.:.
1
Scope of Benefits
.
...
29%
6 - High:.Benerrts extend beyond City boundaries •
3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or mare NET Center areas
t - Low Benefits 3 or fever NET Canter areas
3
sty'
2
Importance of Benefits
. _ :....
20%
_ .-. .:.
.
6 • High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services•
1 • Low. No significant implications
5
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
.
10%
6 -Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, toss of povsz, delays) avoided -
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided
1 -None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
• 15%
6 -Significant economic loss averted
3 • Moderate economic toss averted
1 • Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 • High: 2.300,000 people
3 -Medium: 10,030 to 303,000 people
1-Low: -1Q000people
5
- 75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 • High: Damage from ,mdb le previous disasters
3 Damage* from caw
5
100
-Medium: one went
1 • Loot: No previous damages
Parameter Subtotal
RISK REDl1CTIOW POTENTIAL
100%
sum of parameter
ea; mix a 500
460
1
Estimated Costs'
29%
70
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - Nigh: 30 to 3500,000
3 - Moderate: SSOOK to 35M
t -Low:: b45M
3
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 • Low cases
3 -Moderate costs
1 - High casts
5
125
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio .
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3- Medium: Ratio is between t and 4
1 - Low: Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3-Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 -Low: No funding sources or matching funds are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 - Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1 -Low Project is very coetiy for the City
5
150
1
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max 2 500
450
L.ici
slimated costs are aompriead of two secondary parameters: inl and ma ntahem a/opera ttrig
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
94%
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
46%
92%
41
COST SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
26%
100,
90%
23
12
September 1999
Pegs &B
Mitgation Measure:
Citywide Fueling System and Underground
Storage Tank Removal
Parameter Weighting
Factor
j Scoring Criteria Score
Points
PRIORILY 30% .
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and pans
3 - Medium: Does not to to an iderbfled vutneratklity, but la needed
1- Low: Does not to to any LMS goal or pan
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 - Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1- Low: Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50 -
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
5
75
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and raga
3 • Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified .
1- Low Conflicts with existing pans and policies
5
'
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
r
25%
6 - High
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
125
'Parameter
PRIORITY
Subtotal
SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores; mu■ 500
{t,Orn OI p,3111.. 1!:1 •,r.urrc,) 1 (Ir3,Ixununr pn ,:.rl)l,• ',MO
500
100",,
RISK REDUCTION;ROTENTIAL?;
45%
;;
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 • High: Benefits extend beyond C+E29ity boundaries
3 - Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Canter areas
1- Low Sanefks 3 or fewer NET Ceder antes
5
' ' u
100
2
importance of Benefits '
20%
5 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1- Low: No significant implications
5
=
100
'
3
Laval of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., trail°, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 • Moderato nuisances avoided
1-None
5
50 .
4
Economic Effect Avoided
15%
5 - Significant eoxahonuc lose averted
3 -Moderate economic Ices averted
1- Minimal economic Toes everted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: >300,000 people
3 - Medim: 10.000 to 300,000 people
1- Low: C I0,000 poop*
5
75 —
8
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Damage from multiple previous dsasters
3 -Medium: Damages from one ether event
1- Low: No previous damage.
1
20
)arsmeter Subtotal
felon kELuc rlorl PO (Et.rlAl
100%
sum of parameter scores; max is 500
420
.::,
1
Estimated Costa'
20%
70
1. Initial Cast
75%
6 - High: $0 to 3503,000
3-Moderate: 3500K to SSM
1 - Low '35M
3
225
ii. Maintenanoe/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 -Moderato casts
1-High costs
5
125 —
2
Benefit / Cast Ratio
40%
5 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Stadium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1-Low: Ratio is bass than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 - Medium: Limited matching funds available
1-Low No hindng sources or matching funds are identified
5
,
50
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1-Low: Project is very costly for the City
5
150
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
_
100% sum or parameter scores: max a 500
i ,urn Ot .i1.1IT1 .t, r 1,: 15' : (r11.1.r111 tl} /o.. Alt" CIII I '
470
rrll,I .fl LVJM ■Ii'wl„r,1.ClIN was Ifl!d all-N11J.I$ NMIr iuerver a. 11uYr! silt 11141111It1/ai[LglVigliully
Weighting Factor
•
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
100%
30
•
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
46'/
84%
38
COST SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
September 1999
25%
94%
24
92
Page 8.1
Mitgation Measure:
Storage Facilities for Critical Equipment
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
j Points
PRIORITY 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitgelion Strategy
4LM3J goals and pans
3- Medium: Does not be to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1- Low. Does not tie to any LMS goal or den
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
5 - High; Endorsed by entire community
3-Medium; Endorsed by most may create bunions
1 • Low: Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental impact
15%
5 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
5
75
4
.Legislation
10%
6 • High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3- Medium: New legislation or policy charms needed, but no conflicts
identified
1-Low Conflicts with existing pans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priortbes
25%
6 - High
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
125 —
Parameter Subtotal
PRIORITY SUIT rOFAi.
100% sum of parameter scones; max ■ 500 500
,-.. ni 0f 11.ii.vn,le r a1,00" ,I hn,iu^rum in) • ,1,6 •.E.1111 1 i 0'.,
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL.• •!; .
.>;45'iri •
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City boundaries
3 -Medium: Benetfts 4 or noose NET Center areas
1- Low Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
5
!op
2
importance of Benefits
-,e,3
20%
;-i-0,.
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3-Medium: Needed for other services
1-Low: No significant implications
5
,
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
,
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 • Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
3
30
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic lass averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1 -Minim' economic loss averted
3
45
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
.45
a - High: >300,000 people
3 -Medium: 10 000 to 300,000 peope
1- Low <10.000 people
5
75 -
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
-High: Damage from muffle previous disasters
3 -Medium: Damages from one other event
1-Low No previous damages
5
100
Parameter Subtotal
FtIt,K RFiF)lIC NON PO TF-PIrIAL
100% sum of parameter scores; max 2 500 450 -
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
70
i. Initial Cost
75%
5 - High: S0 to 3500.000
3 -Moderate: 3500K to 35M
1-Low >$SM
3
225 —I
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 -Low coats
3-Moderate costs
1 • High costs
5
—125
2
Benefit ( Cast Ratio
40%
5 -High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 - Helium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 -Low: Ratio is less than 1
5
204
3
Financing
10%
8 - High: Readily availetie through grants or matching floods
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds militia
1 • Low No funding sources or matching funds are id.nell ct
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 • Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1- Low: Project is very ccsdy for the City
3
go
Parameter Subtotal
case SUETTOrAt-
• .. rrms4f04 rush #M sperms'. 7f ket
100% sum of parameter scores: max a: 500 -
4 I.,1.,Jf p.u.lrn.1)., ,,,.:c,10 ,,) {rn.i.unInn t r. lit, ,.1 ,r, I
s' .-..watt: J. nimmette.o.:..:tt..i mwd n..-:! i--.—fttItnr.. �..t.
390
n',,
'.
PR ORI fy SUBTOTAL
Weighting Factor
Points
30%
100%
30
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
90%
41
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
789E
20
TOTAL
Sep ember 1999
91
Page 19-8
1
1
Mitgation Measure:
Harden Fire Facilities
PRIORITY
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score Points
1 Appropriateness of the Measure
2 Community Acceptance
3 Environmental Impact
4 Legislation
30%
40%
10%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and eontorrns Local Miegaban Strategy
(LMSi goals and plans
3 - Medium: goes not be to an identified vulnerability. but is needed
1 • Lew: Owes not tie to any LMS goal or plan
5 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may crew burdens
1 - Lour. Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
5
200
50
5 Consistent with City Priorities
15%
10%
5 - Positive effect
1- No effect
1 - Adverse effect
5 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1 - Low: Conflicts with existing pans and policies
3
5
45
50
25%.
6. High
3 - Medium
1 - Low
5
125
RISK REDUCTIONPOTENNTir4L; .
45% , •
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 • High: Benefits Wand beyond City Boundaries
'3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low: Benefits 3 or rawer NET CerRer areas T
3
S0
2
Importance of Benefit
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3-Medium: Needadforother services
1- Low: No significant impticetlans
5
k-°x•
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided
1- None
5
50 —
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3-Moderate economic loss averted
1-Minimal economic lees averted
3
45
5
Number of People to Benefd
15%
5 - High: >300,a00 people
3 • Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1- Love <10.000 people
5
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 • High: Damage from multiple previous *seaters
3 -Medium: Damages from
5
100
one other event
1- Lour: No previous damages
sum a paramear scares; max a 500 I 430
1
Estimated Costs'
20%7o
I. Initial Cost
75%
5 - High: SO to 1500,000
3-Moderate: 1500K to 55M
1- Law: >S5M
3
225
ji. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
5 - Low costs
3 -Moderate costs
1 • High costs
5
125
2
Benallt 1 Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 - Lour Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
-Medium: Limited matching funds available
1- Low: No funding sources or matching hinds are identified
5
50 —3
4
Affordability
• 30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordede
3 -Medium: Proieet is somewhat affordable
1 - Low: Project is very costly for the City
5
150 +
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter scores: max s 500
470 -
a p.i(.ina'IUr ',L,,Ii I'n,i>ru,ulni •.r-u"-t
r d JJ �►.� �::.ni �r Two aor uixirry naramerars inmsr an(' mwinronanr!.tr.rgar e•.n .+.+.+.. .
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighting Factor
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
COST SUBTOTAL
30%
94%
Points
45'/.
25/
86%
94%
28
39
24
TOTAL
September 1999
100%
91
Page B-9
Mitgation Measure:
Clean and Dredge Canals and Waterways
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
PRIORITY 30%
•
1 Appropriateness of the Measure
2 Community Acceptance
3 -Environmental Impact
Scoring Criteria
Score Points
40%
10%
15%
5 - High: R.duaes vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 - Medium: Does not be to an identified vulnerability. but is needed
1 - Low: Does not tie to any LMS goal or plan
5 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1 -low Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5 - Poslttve effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
5 200
5 5o
5
75
4 Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing taws and rigs
3 -Medium: New Iegislaban or pokey changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1- Low Conflicts watt costing plans and policies
5
50
5 Consistent with City Priorities
25%
5-High
3-Medium
1-Low
5
125
Parameter Subtotal 100% sum of parameter scores; max a 500 500
RISK REDuc;TiOtV,;POTENTrAL:`
;:`45% .:.
1
e
Scopof Benefits
•
20%
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City boundaries
3- Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low Benefits'3 or fewer NET Center areas
5
100
2
Importance of Benefits
. ,-:k.
'
20%
a:._s i, .
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3-Medium: Needed for other services•
1- Low: No significant implications
3
80—
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10% 15
- Significant nuisances (e.g, traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None .
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic ion averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1 • Minimal economic loss averted
3
a5 -
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: )300,000 people5
3 - Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1 - Low <10,003 p.opie
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 - Medium: Damages from ores other event
1 • Low No pre ous damages
5
100
RISK
Parameter Subtotal
HE.DUC"I IO11 Po Ter-1TIAl
100% sum of parameter scores; max is 500 430
,�,nr ul p.i,. ur•-I. r-..., ., un r„ nu u ,
1
Estimated Casts'
20%
50
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - Hlgh : 30 to 3500,000
-Moderate: $500K to $5M
1- Lear >i3M
3
225
if. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low wets
3-Moderate costs
1- High costs
1
25
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Madison: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1- Low: Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - Hlgh: Readily availed* through groins or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds availed*
1- Low No funding sources or matching funds are identified
3
•
30 '
4
Affordability
30%
5 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1-Law: Project is very costly for tie City
5
150 r
COST
Parameter Subtotal
SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max a
j•.wn,,,l p.u.vni lrr ,c.,rr.".)! (111.uI,nurn n-,-.,Ith• .r.,1
I'
500
430
oG'i„
'-G49!R9ltTr] :'-.. .. _ Fr _ ..r.a r ri:rrrnio 01*. If 11Ya1 wi .416NILe u e,ccn o0era17nn cost% ..
Weighting Factor
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
COST SUBTOTAL
30%
46%
25%
100%
86%
88%
Points
30
39
22
TOTAL
September 1999
100%
91
Page B-10
Mitgation Measure:
Harden Neighborhood Enhancement Team
Centers
r Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORI I'Y 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3. Medium: Does not tie to an identified vulnerability. but is needed
1- Low Does not tie to any LM5 goal or plan
5
_
200
.
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorses by entire community
3 • Medium: Endorsed by moat may create burdens
1 - Low Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
3
45
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 - Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed. but no conflicts
identified
1- Low Conflicts with existing pans and policies
5
50
.
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
'
6 - High
3-Medium
1 - Low
5
125
Parameter Subtotal
PRIORITY SUB TOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores; max is S00 470
S .i,rn GI p,udn,,:Iar :,cur:.•) , (rrr.rruu,an pn .•.itJ. ,r:nr,') J-1',
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
v6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City boundaries
3 • Median: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
3
60
2
Importance of Benefits.
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1- Low No significant imdlations
5 -
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic. loss of power. delays) avoid
3 -Moderate nuisances avoid
1 - Noe.
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6- Significant economic Toss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1 • Minimal economic loss averted
5
i
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: >300,000 people
3 -Medium: 10.000 to 300,000 people
1. Low: 00.000 people
5
75
8
Repetitive Damages
_
20%
6 ...High: Damage from muttip* previous disasters
3-Medium: Damages from one other went
1- Low: No previous damages
3
80
Parameter Subtotal
PIS . ,,E_l7UCTICM POTFr111AL
_ _
100% sum of parameter stores; max Is 500
, i.n nl:.rr.urrI - :., ,i, .1 [n,.rr,,,,,i•r p:r. ,d,',„-
420
.. , „
7fe
1
Estimated Casts'
20%
TO
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: so to 5500,000
3 -Moderate: 35001C to S5M -
1-Low )3500K
3
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Cow
25%
6 - Low costs
3 • Moderate costs
1- High cows
5
_
125
2 -Benefit
I Cost Ratio
40%
1 - Nigh: Ratio is greater than 4
3 • Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1- Low Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through an or matching funds
3 • Medium: Limited matching funds awilable
1- Low No funding sources or matching funds are identified
5
50
4
'Affordability
30%
6-High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project is somewhat shareable
1 - Law Project is wry costly for the City
5
150 r
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter scores: max s 500
. 470
COST SUBTOTAL
i.,r,,n nr pdr.rm,:I, r •,C.Ilrr`:Y r im,ramnum pm.•.dr:n •r.,r,•i
7:':L
• etima4Ya -Rem. n nn .r! of hers
teen.n 'grit earntrrml�ra': if** 9n" m9int!ngnrIlnnerabnn cart... _
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighting Factor
30%
94%
Points
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45`h
84%
38
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
94%
24
TOTAL
100"4.
90
September 1999
Page B-11
Mitgation Measure:
Miami Riverside Center Suiiding Improvements
Parameter
Factor
Factor
Scoring Criteria
-
Scare
Points
PRIORITY 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure'
4(%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
ILMS) goals and plans
3 -Medium: Does not tie to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1-Low Does not lie to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1 • Low; Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental impact
15%
6 - Positive effect -
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
3
45 -
4
legislation
•
10%
8 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rigs
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
Identified
1 • Low Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
•
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
•
6 - High
3 -Medium
1 -Low
5
125
PRI
Parameter Subtotal
1 1ITY SUB roTAi,
100% sum of parameter scores•, max ■ f00 470
i :.i,rn of p.x.unrlcr .:.unr.,) En0x rowan tire...d,':. ,r, 1 'J /5::
lAbf.RODUG' bN POTENTIAL `>
.•;:iit$;G
1
Scope of Benefit's
................1-
20%
.:":„.
6 - High: Benefits beyond City boundaries
3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center rreas
Low: Benefits 3 or fewer NET Cancer areas
5
100
2
Importance of Benefits
20%
f `" "`:
6 -High: Needed for ossenbel services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1- Low No significant implications
5
•
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
8 -Significant nuisances (e.g, tragic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
5 .
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
5 - Significant economic loss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1-Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 -High: 2,300,000 mope
3 -Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1- Low: <10,003 poop s
5
75
5
Repetitive Damages
_ .
20%
6 - High: Damage from muttipie previous disaster
3 -Medium: Demeges from one other went
-Low No pewiotw damages
1
20
u
f-"151( f2C1111Cf (J 1-'01E-r•I11A{
sum of parameter scores; mix is 500
420
.:...
1
gstimeted Casts'
20%
70
I. initial Coat
75%
8 - High: sa to 3500,000
3 -Moderate: 5500K or 35M
1-Low: aS5M
3
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low ocean
3 -Moderate costs
1- High costs
5
125
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greeter than 4
3 - Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1- Low: Rasa is less than 1
5
200 .,
3-Financing
_
10%
6 - High: Readily available through graves or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds available
1- Low: Na funding sources or matching funds ars identified
_
5
50
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project n sanity affordable
3 -Medium Project is somewhat affordable
1- Love Project is very cosy for the City
5
150 r
Parameter Subtotal
COST Sl1E(DIAL
_ r• _ ��� � •
-gtirrOa t ,n g..s. _ tininr!_ed.aftwYO
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500 470
`i.7",;,
WOMi PInsmmeters:.nMa! n nt•nsneelioner-.', w r.-
- n oars i.� .. 3.�!^2!.,_.�.,--'---._hw_�.,ft ._., .. ... .. .. ..
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30'ti
94%
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
84%
38
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
94%
24
TOTAL
September 1999
100'/,
90
Page B-12
Mitgation Measure:
Tree Trimming
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY ' 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces winerability and conrorms Local Mitgabon Strategy
(EMS) goals and plans
3 - Medium: Does not tie to an ;donated vulnerability, but is needed
1 - Low: Does not be to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
, 2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 - Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1- Low: Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
5 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
5
75
4 '
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rage
3 - Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, bit no confiders
idantitred
1- Law: Conflicts with existing pans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25% .
6 - High
3 • Medium
1-Low _
5
125
Parameter Subtotal
PRIOr2IIY Stllir MI Al
100% sum of parameter scares; max a 500
500
,c„.;,
FUSKREDU OTIONI POTIrNRAL,
, "45,/.
.::: . ',:
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extended beyond City boundaries
3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Canter areas
1- Low: Benefits 3 or fewer NET Canter areas
3GO
2
importance of Benefits
.
20%
'6 - High: Needed for essential services -
3 -Medium: Needed for other sanders . • r.,
1- Low: No significant implications
5
, ;-sE-4.id.............-
_
. 100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
,
10%
.1-
6 -Significant nuisances (e,g., trele. ions of power, decays} avoided
3 - Moderato nuisances avoided
None •
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic doss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1-Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
S - High: 3.300,003 woe
3 - &tedium: 10,000 to 300.000 people
1 - Low-. (10,000 people •
5
75
• 8
Repetitive Damages
20%
_1-
6! High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3-Medium: Damages from one other event
Lowy. No previous damages
5
100
Parameter Subtotel
RI,K rtr_r]uc Aril No I Fr1I AI-
100% sum of parameter acorns; max ■ 500 '
480
:.: %
>;
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
60 -
I. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: 30 to 3500,000
3 - Moderate: 3500K m ISM '
1-Low: 335M
3
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Coll
25%
6 - Low costs
3 -Moderate costs
1•High cots
3
75
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1- Lowy: Ratio is less than 1
5
200 -
3
Financing
109E
5 • High: Readily menebta through grants n matching funds
3 - Msdfurn: Limited matching funds available
1- Low No funding sources or matching tunic we idsntitsd
3
30 -
4
Affordability
.
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1- Low Project is very costly for the City
3
-
80 e
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL.
• r�-_•_J _--ti --- .----.4.-J -a �...-
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500
(..iiin ui p.a.un,rrx,r ,.,G,rre..,) rIll .r.8nl,rn plr,•Iro •.,_,ir, }
��__y ice.-, .�..f-..-.-«..:-:y�l ��A.... �. �.���-.. �1.�.....! . .,. ... _,.
380 `
6"L
..
4 W,1Iva .V.•.• wrV VV4.11pII1.-Vul 4, .w •1w, ► w., eu 11YWer•,...-w, w,.r ,,,r •, rwerr. wY,ry rrrw,.
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30'/r
100%
30
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
92%
41
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
76%
19
TOTAL
September 1999
100
90
Page B-13
Mitgation Measure:
Mobile Command Vehicles
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
5 - High: Reduces wining:silty and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
{LMS) goals and pans
3 - Medium: Does not tie to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1 - Low: Does not tie to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
• 2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 . Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1- Low: Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50 -
3
Environmental Impact
15%
5 - Positlw effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
3
45 -
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 - Medium: New Initiation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
Idenbled
1 -Low: Confictsmei existing plans and policies
5
-
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
• 25%
5 - High
3 - Medium
1 - Low
5
125
Parameter Subtotal
i'RIOl1I I Y SUES FOI AI
_
100% sum of parameter scores; max a 500 470
.err, ul I,,,I.,nxih r rr.r,l tnr.r.rirario I. r b:, : /,i.,, I
RISK REiwGn I. POTENTIAL : > .
; a5el. '
7:: :.
1
Scope of Benelfts
20%
5 - High: Benefits extend beyond City boundaries
3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low: Benefits 3 or fewer NET Canter areas
5
100
2
Importance of Benefits
•
20%
- ,-i ai , ...
6-High: Needed for essential services
3-Medium: Needed for other services
1- Low No significant Implications
5
•100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
,
10%
6 -Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays} avoided
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided
1 • None
3
30
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 -Significant economic loss averted
3 - Modem% economic Toss averted
1 • Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to 6ene5t
15%
6 - High: >30.000 people
3 . Meditem: 10,000 to 300.000 people
1- Low 410,000 psopfe
5
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
5 - High: Damage from muniple previous disasters
3 -Medium: 0emagsa from one other event
1. Low. No previous damages
1
L -
20
,Pa{ameter Subtotal
i2l�r.. Pi DM: PLIfF:F:FIAi
100% sum of parameter scores; max ■ 500
F.0 r,.,I I,.rr.,rr„ II r ..sirOrr .r<.,rr, II n r ..,rli
400
Tit ..... '.L.,L. ';' .. `'
•. .:::i .6 ;
i':i .::... .. . .- ... .•.. ...
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
_ 100
1. Initial Coat
75%
6 - High: sa to 5500,000
3 - Moderate: 35001C to S5M
1- Low. •SSM
5
375
if. Maintenance/Operating
Cpsts
25%
6 - Low scats
3 • Moderate costs
1- High costs
5
125
2
Benefit 1 Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 - Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 • Law: Ratio is test than 1
5
_
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Read!), available through grants or matching funds
3 -Medical: Limited matching funds available
1. Low: No funding sources or matching funds are identified
5
50
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 - Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1- Low Project is very costly for the City
5
150 e
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL_
100% sum of parameter scores: max = 500
I-.,ior, nt p.rr,:nrcter t,,,,, -•,) ( rr,.r.,r,,,ur, p rr,•.d,L ,,.ern 1
500
IUL;;,
ensue aro namnn3.A err ten.ewrnndgry parameters.Innlak anA, mamlrinaneerooeraana earn
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighdng Factor
Points
30%
94%
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
80%
36
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
100%
25
TOTAL
Sep ember 1999
10O%
89
Page B-14
MRgation Measure:
Backup for Essential City Computer Systems
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
_ _
Points
_
PRIORITY ., .30%:
1
il
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 - Medium: Does not tie to an identified wlnerab lity, but is needed
1- Low Does not tie 10 any LMS goal or plan
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 -High: Endorsed by entre community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1- Low Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
3
45
4
Legislation
10%
5 -High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 - Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1- Low Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
50
5 -.Consistent
-Parameter
with City Priorities
25%
6 • High
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
125
Subtotal
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL_
100% sum of parameter acorn; man ■ 500 470
own ul p.uanu:lul _sort...) ' fin Ixunuf11 pr:rsuilb",I oriel 9.:'2L
MX REDUCTION ;POTENTIAL ':
46'ti .•.''.'
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
5 - High: Benefits extend beyond City bcundsnes
3 • Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1. Low: Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center area
5
..,.
100
2
Importance of Benefits -
2096
6 -High: Needed for essential services
3 - Medium: Needed for other services
1- Low: No signiflnnt implications
4- 5 - _
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (a.g., traffic, Toes of power. decays) avoided
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided
1- Nona
5
. 50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
-6-Significant economic loss averted
'3 - Moderate economic foss averted
1- Minimal economic lose averted
-6
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
1596
- High: '303,000 people
.3 • Medium: 10,000 to 300.000 people
1- Law•. <10,000 people
5
75 _
6
Repetitive Damages
.
20%
6 - High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 • Medium: Damages from one other event
1 - Low No previous deuces
1
20
remoter Subtotal
10096 sumof parameter scores; max = 500
420
kr, N. Pt DUG TIOrk P(1TLt11)AI_
1• 4un r.r S1.Ir,,rnl t. r II.:.1 {Io.I-,irr,Irn I,I, .,. I, 1
<5 i'I.•
-CAST:, ..: :
::: 216.94 ...::'
.. ;:. '
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
W
—
50
i. initial Cost
75%
5 - High: SO to $500,000
3 - Moderate: S500K to SSM
1 - Low '35M
3
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 -Moderate costs
1- High costs
1
25
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio rs greater than 4
3 • Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 . Low: Raba is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - Nigh: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 - Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 • Low No fundanQ source; or matching funds ars identified
5
5O
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project messily rfordrt:le
3 - Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1 - Low: Protect is very cosily for the City
5
150 '
Parameter Subtotal -
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: man = 500
(:,urn of p.31.ln1cic.1 Score): 01,14Irnl:ma pis:,:, arl,r ,r.ul..)
450
90'1
• Caw 4a/ wail old 1:u111f.1liadu kJ; IYIU ag4uIP}ary pei d(aria P III qi aaa 111;CligJpgr7Yri9 cos
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighting Factor
30%
94%
Paints
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
4.8%
1
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
84%
38
90%
23
TOTAL
September 1999
10(N,
89
Page B-15
Mitgatian Measure:
Backup System for City Communications
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY • 30%
- 1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - Hlgh: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mmgaban Strategy
(LMS) goals and pans
3 . Medium: Does not be to an identified winerabllity. but is needed
1 • Low Does not be to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
4 2
-
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - Hlgh: Endorsed by entry community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
I - Low: Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental impact '
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
3
45
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 • Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1 • Low: Conflicts with existing pans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
6 - High
3 - Medium
1 - Low
, 5
125
Parameter Subtotal
PkI(JRITY SLJf.iIO TAI.
100%
(.,un
sum of parameter scores; max a 500
„I p.u.fnirlrt •.r.nr,..I . II _ .rnnun lti ,-• .,l1I, :.1 uri•1
470
RISK REDUCT100 P0TENTIAL?;: ..•.
<'45% . '.•'.
. .
. �
1
Scopeof Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond C y
g d C+F,.29ity boundaries
3- Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Canter areas
1-Low: Ben+Ate 3 or fewer NET Center areas
5
.
� lA0
2
Importance of Benefits
'' 20%
- a'''- '' r :
6 - Hlgh: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1 • Low: No significant implatlona
5
•
100 -
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - Significant nuieancea (e,g., battle, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 • Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
5
50 -
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
5 - Significant acotomic loss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1- Minimal economic loss everted
5
75
5
Number of People to Bene5t
15%
6 - High: n 300,000 pectic
3 • Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1 - Low e10,000 poops
5
75 -
B
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 • High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 -Medium: Damages from one other event
1 - Lew No previous damages
1
20
RISK
Parameter Subtotal
REC)11C IIOPJ PC) I E_PI IIAI
100% sum of parameter scores; max - 500 420
I .„us ut p u.,n r, t•r .enrr .t I,r,.ne,,nr, p.: r. .,l. .. ..•i
1
Estimated Costs"
20%
50
I. Tribal Cost
75%
8 • High: S0 to 3500,000
3 -Moderate: 3509K to S5M
1 - Low: 735M
3
225
u. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 -Moderate coal:
1 • High costa
1
25
2
Benefit! Cost Ratio
40%
v
6 - High: Ratio i3 greater than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 -Low: Redo is Ives than 1
5
200
3
.
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching hands available
1 - Lowy. No funding sources or matching funds are identified
5
50
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is fussily affordable
3 • Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1 - Low: Project is very costly for the City
5
150
Parameter Subtotal
9 sre .1
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500
7.11 lr r- - r•, • u . rn.)& .. r
450
Estimated costs ars comprised of toe secondary parameters: initial and maintenanceionerat+ng fate!!;
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighting Factor
30%
94%
Points
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
84%
38
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
90%
23
TOTAL
September 1999
100'..,
Page B-16
Mitgation Measure:
Portable Pumps and Generators
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30% '
1
Appropnateness of the Measure
40%
6 - Hlgh: Reduces vutndfsbI ty and conforms Local Mitigation Stretepy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 -Medium: Does not de to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1-Low, Doss not de to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
a 2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 - Mediwn: Endorsed by most may crate burdens
1- Low. Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
3
45
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed. but no conflicts
identified
1- Low Cnficts with existing plans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25% '
6 - High
3 - Medium
1 - Low
5
125
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter scores; max ■ 500 470
P is}kItY SUll fO1-AL c.,,,,i ,Ai, ,,,,,r,t,.::,.-U,1 • 1.111.1.isr1 CI! Ial . ��II!,. _,: lli, ,
RISKR CTION T.Ek . t :,.,
AS,�
:;
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City botlndanes
3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low: Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
3
..
50
2
Importance of Benefits
20%
5 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1- Low No significant implications
3
B0
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 -Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 -Moderate nuisances avoided
1- None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 -Significant economic lose averted
3 -Moderato economic toss averted
1- Mlnlnal economic kiss averted
3
45
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
'6 - High: '•300,000 people
3- Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 poop.
1-Low <10,000 people
5
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - Hlgh: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 - Medium: Damages from arts other went
1-Low No previous damages
5
100
Parameter Subtotal
HP: —.I( HEotIcaIOf t I'C)1E r -Innl
100% sum of parameter scores; mu a 500
380
1
Estimated Costa'
20%
100
I. Initial Cast
75%
6 - High: S0 to 5500,000
3 - Moderate: S50OK to SSM
1 -Low >35M
_
5
375
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
1- Moderate costs
1- High costa
5
125
2
Benefit 1 Cost Ratio
4096
6 - Hlgh: Ratio is greater than 4
3.- Madltan: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 • Low: Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - Hlgh: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 - Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 - Law: No funding sources or matching funds are identified
5
—/
50
4
Affordability
30%
5 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 - Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1- Lows Project is very costty for the City
5
150 II
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUB roTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500
_,,ir,,,,1 p.a.unvlor �C:.p«,:,) • I,rn.,ei„n„r, t,t,:.:,:t,,:: l,d:nlr)
500
TOO".',.
• Fettfnat.e4 ,rnela ire nnrwnria Vi n11.-,n-�rnn,la-', nsrarf.wlwr. ,nft.ei r..1
ntirshnrirnrto
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
94%
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
78%
35
COST SUBTOTAL
TOTAL
September 1999
25%
100%
25
88
Page B.17
Mitgation Measure:
Community Emergency Response Teams
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30%
'
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and pans
3- Medium: Does not bolo an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1- Low: Does not de to any LMS goal or plan
5
-
200
e 2
Community Acceptance
10%
5 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 • Medium: Endorsed by most: may create burdens
1- Low: Not likely to to endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
3
45
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1- Low Canticis with existing plane and policies
5
_
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities 1•
25%
6 - High
3 - Medium
1 - Low
5
_
125
PF.dOkITY
Parameter Subtotal
sum Oriu
100% sum u of parameter scores; ma 500
1 .,,,,. e;l1.u.un,14,i ',cu146 nii_1.n1,4'1,i ..- iih .. loll
470
RISK REPLICTION PatF-NTIAL ~
` L6
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
•6 - High: Benefits extend beyolnd City boundaries
3-Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low: Benefits 3 or fewer NET Canter areas
3 .
50
_
2
Importance of Benefits
_>
20%
_.-€. ri;. - -.
•
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 - Medium: Needed for other services
1- Low: No significant Imgicatlons
5
100
3
Leval of Nuisance Avoided
10%
5 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, lass of power, delays) avoided
3 -Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic foss averted
3 • Moderate economic Iris averted
1- Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: 3.300,000 people
3 - Medium: 1030 to 10,000 people
1 - lour: (1000 people ...r
5
75
8
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3-Medium: Demagee from one other event
- Low No previous damages
1
20
ftisi,:.HE
Parameter Subtotal
Our: nor] l'OTFfdTIAt
_1
100% sum of parameter scorer max 4 500
.irnnl,.r.u... ....r-.1 nn.i.❑nnniiu-.,I. ,•,
350
,
;,.
, .:... .. a .. .. .
1
Estimated Costs"
20%
70
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - SO to 560,000 •
3 - $60K to $000K
1 - Low: >$50OK
3.
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 - Moderate coats
1- High costs
5
125
2
Bene5t l Cost Radio
40%
6 - High: Ratty is greater than 4
3 - Midkan: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 - Low Ratio is less than l
5
200
-
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily enlist'. through grants or matching funds
3-Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 - Lore No funding sources or matching fords are identified
5
50
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 - Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1 - Law: Project is very costly for the City
5
150 e
cos
Parameter Subtotal
r SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500
r 4111 ❑I fi.,r,rcn1.Irrr ., ..0u,1_,i . (1i1.r.uiiiiir1 tit; . :,.,• r_in, 1
470
si I'3r.
Esfimated:cases are aamnneed of two secondary parameters: Jnmmi an a maJmerle nceropaauno. cns"ar
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighting Factor
30%
Points
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
COST SUBTOTAL
46%
94%
76%
28
34
25%
94%
24
TOTAL
Sep ember 1999
100°,.
13E
Page EMS
)
•
Mitgation Measure:
Loans for Private Owners to Improve Seawalls
and Stabilize Shoreline
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
I
Points
PRIORITY • 30% .
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 - Medium: Does not tie to in identified vulnerability, tut is needed
1- Low: Does not tie to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - Hlgh: Endorsed by entre community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most; may create burdens
1-Low: Not likely to to endorsed by the community
3
30 `
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1- Adverse effect
5
75
4
Legislation
10%
6 • High: Consistent wan exsting laws and rags
3 -Medium: New krgisladon or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1-Low Conflicts with existing plane and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
5 - High
3 - Medium
1 - Low
5
125
PRIORITY
Parameter Subtotal
SUBTOTAL.
100% sum of parameter scores; mu ■ 500 460
(:.Lint ul 141, irn,rlcr :•Con:,(' Irn.l%rinunl r;r.t,lbfv `,c,rr,•i Jri'„
1--11EDIfC
f3N:POTENTIAL;::.-
41 ,. ;
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 High: Benefits extend beyond City boundanes
3 • tedium: Benefits 4 or more NET center areas
1- Low Benefits 3 or fewer NET Carder roes
3
B0
2
Importance of Benefits .
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1- Low No significant implications
-, 3 .
-
6o
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
W
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., tragic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided .
1- None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
•
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1-Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
5 - High: a3o0,00o poops
3 - Medlem: 10,000 to 300,000 poop.
1-Low: 410.000 peoot.
3
45 -
8
Repetitive Damages
20%
r
5 - High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 -Medium: Damages from one other went
1 - Low No pervious damsges
5
100
Parameter Subtotal
RISK REIN IC noel PC) rE-r-1 FIAL_
100% sum of parameter scores; max ■ 500
(.,,,,� „I ri,.nr . 1, r .,.,, .-.,7 trr� I. „err„� I,�� - ,�t.- - ,: „r, l
390
.. „
1.
Estimated Costs'
20%
70:.:
I. Initial Cost
75%
5 - High: S0 to S500,000
3 • Modena.: 3500K to S5M
1-Low ?55M
3
225
ii. Maintanance/0perating
Costs
25%
6 • Low costs
3-Moderato costs
1- High costs
5
125
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 • High: Reto Is greater than 4
3 - Medium: Ratio a between 1 and 4
1 -Low Raba is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - Hlgh: Readily available through grants or metcnmg funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 - Low: No funding sources or matching funds are identified
1
•
10
4
Affordability
30%
6 • High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project Is somewhat affordable
1 - Lour. Project a very costly for the City
5
150 1
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL_
100% sum of parameter scores: max s 500
(,,urn of p.lr,vnak'l t,cnrc..) (1n•1K,1 1,1n1 1,0r.,.4110 •.,-,li,•}
430
86'i,,
14.44.1111411401.1 61.0i1. M15 6611 I UM IaVV WI LVOV ial.Vl IVA. Y iH1411111C1QIi. II 1111411 4l161 III lI11L11i1i.. IJe1■ISIIV LVai•
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL.
30%
96%
29
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
COST SUBTOTAL
45'%
25 Yr
78%
86%
35
22
TOTAL
September 1999
100!
If b
Pegs B-t9
Mitgation Measure:
Replace and Improve City -owned Seawalls
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
,_
PRIORITY 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 - Medium: Does not be to en identified vulnerability, but Is needed
1- Low. Does not 4e to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
r 2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3-Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1-Love Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental impact
15%
6- Positive affect
3-Noeffect
1 - Adverse effect
5
75
4
Legislation
10%
6-High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1 - Low: Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
6 - High
3 - Medium
1 - Low
' 5
125
Parameter Subtotal
PRI )RFTY SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores; max a .500
{',urn Ill p,u.rrrrcicr :,r.ur .) ' Urr•rF.uruun lvr:.•„oI,- ,.nr,-e
500 .
IU'1':.
RISK REDUCTION PCTIDIT1AL •.:!::
: 44%L
r 1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City boundaries
3 -Medium: 4 or more NET Canter areas
1- Low•. Benefits 3 or fever NET Center areas
3
B0
2
importance of Benefits
-
20%
' °'-ki -
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3-Medium: Needed for other services
1 • Low No signiAcant implications
3
•
BO
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
5 - Significant nuisances (e.g.. traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 -Moderate nuisances avoided
1- None
5
,
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3+Moderate economic loss averted
1- Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of Purple to Benefit -
15%
5 - High: >300,000 people
3 - Medium: 10,000 m 300,000 people
1 • Low <10,000 people
3
V
45
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
5 - High: Damage from mukbpie premix disasters
3 • Medium: Damages from one other event
1 - Low No previous damages
5
100
Parameter Subtotal
RISK RLI111C IIOPt PUTT -:rJ TIF1t
100% sum of parameter scores; max is 300
I:un ul li.rr, ,, 1, r .oft .I I11.1,i111,0111,,i . ,.l,l,
380
1
Estimated Costs"
20%
70
i. Initial Cast
75%
6 - High: SO to S503,000
3 • Moderato: 3500K to 35M
1- Law: Higher than S SM
3
225 -
it. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 - Modarara costs
1. High costs
5
125
_
2
Benefit/ Cost Ratio
43%
6 - High: Ratio x greater than 4
3 - Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 • Low Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%6
6 - High: Readily evaiiacte throuse grants or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds availed,
1- Low: No fundng sources or matching funds are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30% '
6 - High: Project is easily affordads
3 -Medium: Project is samwwtrat effordade
1 - Love. Project is very costly for the City
3
-
90 e
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500
('�+rn ul p.udrtrulrr scnrt",J lrnl.,nwrn e.,•,•,ddu ,c.urrY
390
r d":,
• eN:..rgt,.4 ,...dv a..-nw.ww...r 2f!W..1...22 n. w.ni,n.e,r,' ' enw, rnami"Ifs rlrann/r9nrin rn�re
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
100%
30
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
78%
35
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
78%
20
TOTAL
September 1999
100"/
85
Page B•20
Mitgation Measure:
Portable Traffic Control Signs
Parameter
weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30%
1
Apprapnateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulneratxlrty and conforms Lora! Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 - Medium: Does not De to an identified vuineratylity, but is needed
1- Low: Does not tie to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
2
l-
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by snore community
3 - Medium: Endorsed by most; may create burdens
1. Low Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
'5 - Positive effect
3 -No effect
1 - Adverse effect
5
75
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and regs
3 - Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1- Low Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%,
6 - High •
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
125
Pt2IORI
Parameter Subtotal
FY .5LJ ro rAl
100% sum of parameter scores; max a 500 500
r.,wr,r 0,1 p.,w,rllr,•r,..........•., 11,1.,,,,rrr, P. .nl, ,, ,'i, r uor,,
R!S
REotJGTICN:PgvgikIpti :.
: :45% : ':J
,.•,
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefiowxt.nd beyond City boundaries
3 - Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low: Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
5
.100
2
importance of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential service:
3 - Medium: Needed for other services
1- Low. No significant implications
5
R.,. i n
100
- .
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
1096
6 -significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of paw, delays) avoided
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided
1- None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3 - Moderate economic Ions averted
1 -Minimal economic kiss averted
1
15
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: >300,000 people
3 - Medium: 10,000 to 300,003 people
1 - Law 410,000 people
5
75
8
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Damage from multiple pravious d asters
3 -Medium: Damages from one other event
1 - Low No previous demages
1
20
Parameter Subtotal
RI.;K RLDUC flON PO If rI l iAl
100% sum ol�'arameter scores; max a 500
c.rrn nl r,.u,unr-r, r -,a.l hn_,•n,.un �:r, .-r!, „r _
360
.,
1
Estimated Costa'
20%
70
i. Initial Cost •
75%
6 - High: 60 to $500,000
3 -Moderate: $500K to SSM
1-Low: >SSM
3
225
i. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 -Moderate casts
i - Nigh costs
5
125
2
Benefit ! Cost Ratio
40%
5 - High: Rata is greater than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4•
1 - Low Ratio is less than t
5
Y00
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds available
1- Low No funding souses or matching funds are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project 6 somewhat afordeble
1- Low Project is very costly for the City
5 •
150 e
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL_
100% sum of parameter scores: max x S00
('run r,t p.u.lrnr.rer - r.arr^ i {rn.rrunurn p,r..ih urrr
450
90":,
1.7
17.1w .1. .rr.i �u+rw nwr� N%u wnw u .. rnru� any IniOl 11%ee/N1 weY YtlIAY17Y W.e
Weighdng Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
100%
30
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
COST SUBTOTAL
45%
25'h
72%
90%
32
23
TOTAL
100';�
85
Sep amber 1999
Page 9-21
Mitgation Measure:
Storm Shutters for City Buildings
Parameter
We
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30% —
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
'6 - High: Reduces vutnerabiity and conforms LacaI Mibgabon Stiategy
(LMS) goats and pans
3 • Medium: Does net tie to en identified vulnerability, but is needed
1 • Low: Dces not tie to any LMS goal or pan
5
' 200
0 2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3-Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1 • Low Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50 "-
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
- 3
45
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with coking laws and rags
3-Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1-Low: Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
• 25%
6 - High
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
125 -
• Parameter Subtotal
PRIORl[Y SUES rC rAL.
100% sum of parameter scores; max ■ 500
•.,un nl p,,,.,nirrr, ',L(/r, .,) 1,n ,. ununh 1.., .1t.!,- `., ,,,, i
470
tRISK;REDCIGTICNPOTENTIAL: '..,
::.46% :::.
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City boundaries
3-Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Ginter areas
1- Low: Benellb 3 or fewer NET Canter areas
3
60
2
importance of 13ensfits
20%
,„ ,, ..
.
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services •
1- Low No significant implications
5
100 -
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3-Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
5
50 '
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
5 - Significant economic loss averted
3-Moderate economic loss averted
1-Minimal economic loss everted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: >300,000 people
3 - Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1- Low: <10,000 people
5
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 -Medium: Damages from one otter event
1 - Low: No previous damages
5
100
I I5 A.
Perimeter Subtotal
M. I)IIC TIC)LJ POT:; I1IiI t
100% sum of parameter scores; mast a 500 460
,urn nl p.,r.1111. It , ul, .l Uri ...............
1
Estimated Costs-
20%
4Q
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: sa to $500.000
3 -Moderate: $S00K to 35M
1 • Low' >35M
1
75
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low coats
3- Modesto costs
1 - High costs
— 5
125
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
5 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
i - Low Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Frnancing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 • Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 • Low. No funding sources or matching funds are identified
5
•
50
_
4
Affordability
-•
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 - Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1 - Low: Project is very cosily for the City
1
30
f
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter scores: mu a 500
320
•
t•,urr, nl p.n:u;1.. t .r
....tt ttd wv� .i.:.:.�rC...vd St:a,::-.a on zi y par:r,rotan : i , bsi '°-u 4114 ,irp14 �1.pIF11114W VYf1iWr! 4y M
fi • 1'1',
Weighting Factor
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
COST SUBTOTAL
30%
45%
25'h
94%
92%
64%
Points
28
41
16
TOTAL
September 1999
1 oa°i,
85
Page B-22
Mitgation Measure:
Storm Water Drainage Facilities for Bell Meade
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRt0RITY 307.
1
Appropriateness of the Measurer
-
•
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and pans
3. Medium: Dos not tie to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1- Low: Does not tie to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by snore community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most_may create burdens
1 -Lour Nat likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
-
3
Environmental Impact
15%
5 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
5
75
'
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and reps
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identfied
1 • Loan Conflicts with existing pans and policies'
5
•
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25% 6
- High
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
125
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter score; max a 500
500
PRIORI FY _SUBTOTAL
{-.urn ul par.unc'h•r :.(.uu:_,) ' Irnr.e4i1111rrn;ra,.,11111 •.i.11“1.
10'PL
mfa(RepucTwou POTENTIAL % :
i,45.h
,
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City boundanes
3 -Medium: Benefit 4 or more NET Center areas
1 • Low Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
1
20
2
Importance of Benefits •
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 . Medium: Needed for other services
1 • Low No significant implications
_y, i . 5., .•:
- .., , 100
.
: . .
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 • Signlllcant nuisances (e.g,. enilic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 -Moderate nuisances avoid
1-None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3 - Moderate economic toes averted
1 • Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: >300,000 people
3 • Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1- Low <10,000 people
3
a5
6
Repetitive Damage
20%
5 - High: Damage tram multiple previous diaaears
3 • Medium: Damages from one other event
1- Low No previous damages
5
100
parameter Subtotal
Ft15 C i2fiOtI1-. Hal/ POrLr1Ti4t
100%
sum of parameter score; max ■ S00
390
,
COS .. ....:
•:
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
80
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: so to $500,000
3 - Moderate: S500K to SSM
i•LOW >S5M
3
225
il. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
5 - Low costs
3 - Moderate costs
1 • High roata
3
75
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 . High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 - Medium: Ratio Is between T and 4
1 - Low: Ratio is less than 1
5
200 `
3
Financing
10%
5 - High: Readily available through grams or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 -Low No funding sources or matching funds are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1 - Low Project Is wry costly for the City
3
90
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scares: max a 500
1'-.um or p, rrjnu,L:r ,,c:onr:,s . inr.rzirnurn pun! anf, ,rirn)
380
1f-..,
__trtarnl t..R +r.e ..."'r .-__ _.=w�---_..� ��rrn,-_._. ..., I ...red ,mq�-n.�......_�r^ ____ .
Wetighdng: Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
309E
100%
30
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
46%
78st+
35
COST SUBTOTAL
26%
75%
19
TOTAL
September 1499
I0o i,
ti 4
Page 8-23
Mitgatian Measure:
Floodproofing First floor of Main Police
Building
Parameter
weighting
Factor_
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY • .30%. .
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and pans
3 -Medium: Dots not be to en identified vulnerability. but is needed
1-Low: Does not be to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorses by entire community
3- Medium: Endorsed by most may crate burdens
1-Low Not Iiicily to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
3
_
45
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rests .
3-Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no canticlst
identified
1 • Low Conflicts with existing pions and policies •
5
'
50
5
Consistent with City Priorttes
25%
.
5 - High
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
125
Parameter Subtotal
PRIORITY SUB TOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores; man m 500 470
r.,,.rn oI p.rr.usr, hrr 1.< nn::.j ' (nr.r>„rrnir:r p:r, . ld, r .n, 1 `.i rrit
RERUCTfONPOrENTlAL:
:;.;4614 :;..":..
. '; . >; : .::
1
Scope Of Benefits
li
20%
::: is .: .
6 - High: 5.n.tb.xt.nd beyond City boundaries
3- Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center area.
3
60
2
Importance of Benefits - ,
= 20% - .
6- High: Needed for services
5
100
essential
3- Medium: Needed for other services
1-Low No significant implications
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 -Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic. toss of paver, delays) avoided
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
•
1.
10
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3- Moderate economic loss averted
1- Mlninal economic, loss everted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: >300,000 people
3-Medium: 10,000 to 300000 people
1- Low: 4 10,000 people
5
_
_
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3-Medium: Damages from on. other event
1-Low No previous damages
1
—
.
20
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter scores; max ■ 5000
340
Ri51( RI:DUC110U POTENTIAI
1
Estirrated cam.
"tax
ie
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: SO to 5500,000
3-Moderate: S50OK to SM
1-Low >iOM
3
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 -Moderate casts
1-High costs
5
125
2
Benefit! Cost Ratio
40%
5-High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 - Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1- Low: Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3-Medium: Limited matching funds available
1- Lour. No hording sources or matching funds are identified
5
_
50
4
Affordability
30%
5 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 - Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1- Low Project is very costly for the C'i y
T.
5
150 1
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL.
100% sum of parameter scores: max s 500
('••Jun ut 1.11anu-I.1',c1)r(r.,Y (rll.Jrlrnurl. pu•.-., t I. .....•r
470
U-1'1L
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
94%
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
(38%
31
COST SUBTOTAL
26%
94%
24
TO TA L
Stptember 1999
100"/
83
Page 8-24
Mitgation Measure:
Low Power Portable AM Radio Stations
Parameter
weighing
Factor
Scaring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY .30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vuln.rabdlrty and conforms Local Mitrgabon Strategy
5
200
(LMS) goals and plans
3 -Medium: Does not tie to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1 - Low Doe not tie to any LMS goal or plan
t 2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 • High: Endorsed by entire community
5
50
3 - Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1 - Low Not likely to be endorsed by the community
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3
45
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
4
Legislation
10%
5 - High: Consistent with .xisbng laws and rags
5
50
3 - Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1 • Low: Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25% •
6 - High
5
125
3 - Medium
1 - Low
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter scores; max a 500
470
PRIORITY
SUBFOCA/ (,,um ut par.rmrlr:r s, nrr-.) yr1 o. ur.irn i, r..1t,I- ,,
KREGtJCTIpP[;i?OTENT1A1. l:
:46
_ ;:,.: .. ,:' ..:_: ., ..
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High; Benatlts extend beyound City boundaries
3 -Medium: B.nefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1 - Low Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center area
5
100
2
Importance of Benefits
—10%
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1 • Low No significant implications
5
. .. i,a,.
_
100
.:,:,.
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
6 - Signlflcant nuisances (to., traffic, loss cf power, (elays) avoided
3-Madinat* nuisances avoided
1- None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1-Minimal economic, loss averted
1
15
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
5 - High: >10.000 people
3 -Medium: 1000 to 10,000 people
1-Low: 41000 people
5
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 -High: Damage from muMlple previous disasters
3 -Medium: Damages from ens other event
_1 - Law No previous damages
1
20
Parameter Subtotal
RISK RE[Jt1CTIOA) POIFi itIAL
t00% sum of parameter scores; max a 500
r• err ,rl p_ir,urr, it r ,r_r,rr ..l Irri r,lrllrrrrr, 0 .t, �— ..,,
360
1
Estimated Costa' -
20%
100
I. Initial Cost
' 75%
6 - High: S0 to S500,000
3 - Moderate: $500K to $5M
1- Lovn sSSM
5
375
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 -Low cogs
3 -Moderate costs
1- Nigh costs
5
125
2
Benefit 1 Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1- Low. Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 - Medium: Limited matching hinds available
1- Low: No funding sources or matching funds are identified
5
50
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Prq.ct is easily affordable
3- Medium: Project is somewhat affordebl.
1- Low: Project rs very costly for the City
3
g0 -
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500
(:,urn fit IJ,u,frnctt•, tcnrcn,i . (ens*.,.„n, pu:,',.h;� • colt.)
440 _
ii3r1L
n rMrrr verw'r,OM::, r.rrort' r.wc- rrpry.4 -- ml.mr.nti,rr.-r"r"" '! 42 rMT,'`' •
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
3054
94%
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
43%
72%
32
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
88%
22
TOTAL
Sep ember 1999
100
132
Page B-25
Mitgation Measure:
Protect Vital City Records
Parameter
We
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
_
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mingettan Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 -Medium: Does not be to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1- Low: Does not be to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 • High: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdrms
1- Low: Nat likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
3
45
4
Legislation
10%
6 • High: Consistent with existing ISM and rags
3 . Medium; New legislation or poiiay changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1- Low: Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
50 -
5
Consistent with City Prio rides
r
• 25%
6 - High
3 - Medium
1 - Low
5
125 -
Parameter Subtotal
f RioRl rY SUHTOTAa.
100% sum of parameter scores; max = 500
i..,,rn nl I,.tir.rm,-I :.c-ultnI-r..•rI 1rn Ir ,
A0
RISK ifIEDUCTION.POTENTIAL-,
45%
-
., ,
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 • High: Benefits extends beyond City boundaries
3
90
3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1 • Low. Benelifs 3 or fewer NET Center areas
2
Importance or Benefits
20%
6 -High: Needed for essential services
r
5
100
,;,;,nil, ..
3-Medium: Needed for other services -
'
1- Love No significant implications
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
5 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays} avoided
1
10
3 -Moderate nuisances avoided
•
1- None
'6
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
- Significant economic loss averted
5 -
75
'-"-
3 -Moderate economic loss everted
1- Minimal economic loss everted
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: ?300,000 people
5
75
3 - Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
r
1- Lax. <10,000 people
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Damage from multiple previcua disasters
5
— 100
—
3-Medium: Damages from one other event
1- Low: No previous dameges
ul�total L_ 100% sumoTperamlrterscores; max e 500 l 420
0:
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
80
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: 30 to 3503,000
3 -Moderate: 3500K to S5M
1 • Low-. >35M
3
225
if. Mairdenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 -Moderate costs
1 - High costs
3
75
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Medium: Redo is between 1 and 4
1 - Love Ratio is less than t
3
120
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching fends available
1 • Low: No funding sources or matching fends are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 - Medium: Project is somewhat alfonieble
1 • Low: Project b very costly for the City
3
90
e
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500 —
(1.11111 llf p.11'.1.1111 CP :,(,Iitt ) : (( I.lii11111,11 iP, III''. r 1i11 1
300
1:0
w_"_ •I . Si4111O.GU v I.urj i.l,ygl Y111pY ag1..i1114M41y W1•111,1elf 1it�. I i111f11 N114 MO. 11111. 11h:Y1VbblaNil� �.1/"
.'
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
vRiSK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
COST SUBTOTAL
30%
94%
28
45'%
26%
84%
60%
38
15
TOTAL
Sep ember 1999
100
tit
Page B-26
Mitgation Measure:
G.S.A. Motorpool Garage Doors
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
PRIORITY 30%
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goats and plans
3 -Medium: Does not be to an identified vulnerability, but 1s needed
1 -Low: Does not tie to any LMS goal or pan
5
200
2
3
4
Community Acceptance
Environmental Impact
10%
15%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3-Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1-Low Not likely to be endorsed by the community
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
5
3
50
45
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing Iowa and rigs
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed. but no conflicts
identified
1- Low: Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
6-High
3 • Medium
1 - Low
5
125
RISKREDUGTiONPOTSNTifit ',
.:45%.: ':.''
:
1
Scope of Elements
20%
6 - High: Benefits extends beyond cry boundaries
3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Canter areas
1-Low Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center erns
3
60
2
Importance of Benefits
-
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1 • Low No significant implications •
5
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
5 - Significant nuisances (e.g., trafllc, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 -Moderato nuisances avoided
1 -None
1
10
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
-6
6 - Significant' anomie toss averted
3 - Madarate eoonomlo bra overbid
1-Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
- High: u300,000 people
3 -Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1 • Low 410,000 people
5
75
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
5 - High: Dam.ge from multiple pm/loci disasters
3 Damages from
5
100
-Medium: one other event
1-Law. No previous damages
F215 A.
Parameter Subtotal
I.E-IJ:1C ti0:1 POif-ilrlAl
100% sum of parameter scores; max 0 500 420
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
60
i. Initial Cast
75%
6 - High: SO to S500,000
3-Moderate: S500KtoSSA
1-Low: >S5M
3
- 225 --
ii. Maintenance/Operating
CCosts
25%
6 - Low cases
3 -Moderate costs
1 - High coats
3
75 -
2
Benefit/ Cost Ratio
40%
6 -High: Rana is greater than 4
3 - Medium: Ratio is bstw.an 1 and 4
1- Low: Ratio is less then 1
3
120
3
Financing
1044i
6 - High: Readily available thmugh grants or matching funds
3-Medium: Limited matching funds available
1- Leer No funding sources or metrhing funds are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is wily affordable -
3 • Medium: Proect is soniewitat affordable
1 - Low: Protect is very costly for the City _
' 3
90 e
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500
300
e_ s s 0
1 ,,ini 01 p,i ilf114 Iry HC.,) l,n,c.�n weer l,rr. ,,bk
nn1
sbm$tid COS are r prised of
Weighting Factor
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
COST SUBTOTAL
30%
48%
25%
94%
84%
60%
Points
28
38
15
TOTAL
Sap ember 7999
100*1,
tat
Page B-27
Mitgation Measure:
Anchor Park Fixtures
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY • 30% -
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitgation Strategy
{LMS) goals and plans
3 -Medium: Does not he to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1.1-ore Does not be to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
1 2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - Hlgh: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1 -Low Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50 -
3
Environmental Impact
15%
5 -Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
3
A5 —
4
Legislation .
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rigs
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1 -Low Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
5 -High
3 -Medium
1-Low
• 5
125
Parameter Subtotal
FRiONI rr Su[1Tc.L r/L.
100%
,
• sum of parameter scores; max: 500 i 470
.,,,,,,,I 1,.,,,,m, n , ,,.,,,r .r 0.1 I,Inun, 1,,, ; 1 .
fRISKR. 1G.TION POMITIAL:y;
45% ;:
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extends beyond City Condense
3 -Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Lew Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
3
,80
2
Importance of Benefits
._.
20%
_.,.. - _.-
6 -High: Needed far essential services
3 - M.dlum: Needed for other services .
1- Low: No significant implications .
5
100
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
5 -Significant nuisances (e.g„ traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3- Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
1
10
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
5 - Significant economic loss averted
3-Moderate economic loss averted
1- Minimal economic loss averted
5
75
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
5 - High: >300,000 people
3 - Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1- Lour. c10,000 people
5
75
8
Repetitive Damages
20%
5 - High: Damage from multiple previous detesters
3 -Medium: Damages from one other event
1- Low: No previous damages
5
100
Parameter Subtotal
r ISLi i.{L.Lnlc TR)r.l Pc:IE:tI rIA 1
100%
sum of parameter scars; max m 500 420
tom; ...... . ....: . '.::c.
z614. '::
..
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
80
i. Initial Cost
75%
5 - High: S0 to 5500.000
3- Moderate: 5500K to S5M
1- Low: 'S5M
3
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3 - Moderate costs
1 • High costs
3
75
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - Hlgh: Ratio a greater than 4
3 - Mediae: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 • Low Rate is Ion than 1
3
120
3
Financing
10%
5 - High: Readily available through grants or Hatching funds
3 • Medium: Limited matching funds availed.
1 • Low No funding sources or matching lunch' are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: m um: Project is sawtat affordable
1 • Law: Project is very costly for the City
3
_
90 r
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max a 500
r..,,,ul,,.,,.,,,,,:L:, :,,.,,��: ]-1,,,.,,,,,�,,,,,,,,, •.r.,, •. ,�„ �
300
c� r„
VYeighdng Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
94%
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
84%
38
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
50%
15
TOTAL
September 1999
11J ,
131
Page 9.28
Mitgation Measure:
Automated Bar Screen for Orange Bowl Pump
Station
Parameter
Weightng
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY • 30% •
1
r
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerareity and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 -Medium: Does net tie to an identified vutnsrat:iliy, but a needed
1- Low: Does not tie to any LMS goal or plan
5
_
200
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 • Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1 • Law: Nat likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 • No affect
1 - Adverse affect
5
75
4
Legislation
10%
6 -High: Consistent with existing laws and reps
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
Identified
1 - Low: Conflicts with existing pans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorites
25%
6 - High
3 -Medium
1-Low
5
125
PRIORITY
Parameter Subtotal
SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores; max. 500 500
(• .,tin (,1 ;mid/mote,. •,(.(Uc'.j' {rn.unnurn pr,'..ItI.,'.r nr:•) (p(p;,
r;
C r F+ci etrtlah, `'i.
. 45%
, ... ;:.
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 • High: Senerris extend beyond City boundaries
3-Medium: Benefits 4 Of more NET Center areas
1- Lour. Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
1
'x' ""
y
20
2
Importance of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services •'.:
1- Low: No significant implications
. 3
,, i;:�
. ' :
60
:•-. .
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
. 10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g.. traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3 - Moderate nuisances avoided
1- None
5
50 -
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 -Significant economic loss averted
3-Moderate soanamic loss averted
1-Minimal economic Ices averted
3
45
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: >300,0130 people
3 - Medium: 10,000 to 300.000 mom*
1- Lew: 410,000 people
3
45
5
'Parameter
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Damage from disasters
5
100
multiple previous
3 - Medium: Damages from one other event
1- Low No previous demagss
Subtotal
Rltif( RLL7tJC1(U1J HIM 111-1A1
100% sum of parameter Scores; max it 500
, -.rife rJ p 11 Icni, lr'r r ern: ,I (rn..,,,,,rlt04. .d i.:, r
1
'
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
B0
I. initial Cost
75%
6 -Hat: S0 to 3500,000
3 - $500K to SSM
1- Low. >35M
3
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
6 - Low costs
3-Moderate costa
1- High wets
3
75
2
Benefit! Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3-Medium: Ratio is betwun 1 and e
1- Low Ratio is less Mani
3
120
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 - Medium: Limited matching funds awilat:ke
1- Low No funding sources or matchingfunds are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 • Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1- Low: Project is very costly for the C1ty
5
150
Parameter Subtotal
COST s1JefOTAL
100% sum of parameter SCUMS: max a 500
CcUr11 1/1 p.u;un.:tr:r.:nuns) (r ,icrni:rn prr,a,f,lr• :suer Y
360
.
•
1
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighting Factor
30%
100%
Points
30
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
64%
29
COST SUBTOTAL
25%
72%
18
TOTAL
SeptemDN 1999
100'Y
7I
Page 8-29
Mitgation Measure:
Power Backup tor Litt Stations
Parameter
We
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vutneradlr y and conforms Local Misgaaen Strategy
{LMS) goals and plans
3 -Medium: Does not tie to an identified vulnerability but is needed
1- Lowe: Coes not tie to any LMS goal or plan
3
120
i 2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 • High: Endorsed by entire community
3-Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1- Low: Not likely te be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 • Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
5
75
4 'Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3-Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed. but no conflicts
identified
1 - Low. Conflicts with existing plans and policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
• 25%
6 - High
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
125
Parameter Subtotal
PRIORI TY SIJBTOf{1I_
100% sum of parameter scores; max a 500
(..un, cal l)so,ar,l,n 1., ,, ,r.i : (rn.,.m.,,n, i„r-,., ... ._,„ 1
420
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL i;' :
.461f►• .;
'
• 1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 • High: Benefits extend beyond City boundaries
3 - Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1-Low: Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
3
60
2
importance of Benefits
20%
;; : f, :, i.
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3-Medium: Needed for other services .
1- Low: No significant implications
3
b0
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
5 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
avoided
3 -Moderate nuisances avoided avoided
1-None
5
50
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3-Moderate economic loss averted
1-Minimal economic loss averted
3
45
5
6
Number of People to Benefit
15%
'6 - High: >300,000 people
3- Medium: 10,000 to 303,000 people
1 • Low <10,000 people
5
_ 75
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 - High: Damage from muhiple previous ctsastsra
3 • Medium: Damages from one other went
1- Lour No previous damages
5
100 '
Parameter Subtatel
Rrsl< RE DUG lOrl P(TEri rtnl
100%
sum of parameter scores; max a 500 390
r.,,r„,.I p,,r.rr,„ I. r ,r „r, 011 i•irr„l,,, 1i -.,1,'..
'
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
80
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: S0 to $500,000
3 • Moderate: 1500K to $5M
1- Low: > 35M
3
225
ii, Maintenance/Operating
Costa
25%
6 - Low costs
3 - Moderate costs
1 - High costs
3
75
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is grater than 4
3 • Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 . Low: Ratio is less than 1
3
120
3
Financing
10%
8 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 - Low: No tuning sources or matching funds are ideitif ed
3 -
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 - Medium: Project is somewnet affordable
1 - Low. Project is very costly for the City
3
90
Parameter Subtotal
COSSI.JBTOTAI_
100%
sum of parameter scores: max a 500
(-xin,ofp.u.rrriel,rrs.,_ur.-,) I,1i,,,,,,,,rr11„1•.•.:Fl,.-r„•,
300
ii0',,
rsltr ate 1 rn%N nr eft sw 4,rlrrary nlrmmY.ra' u+mar anrt rnsenrwnaneWiarmr fin- Fn1t11
j
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighting Factor
Pointe
30%
84%
25
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
78%
35
COST SUBTOTAL
26'h
60%
15
TOTAL
September 1999
10 0II.,
75
Page 8.30
1
Mitgation Measure:
Study to Reduce Erosion on Virginia Key
Beach
Parameter
Wetghung
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30%•
1
r
Appropriateness of the Measure.
40%
6- High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) pool$ and pans
3 -Medium: Does not be to an identified vulnerability, but is needed
1 • Low. Does not tie to any LMS goal or plan
3
• 120
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by snore community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most: may create burdens
1- Low: Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50
3
Environmental Impact
15%
5 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 • Adverse effect
5
75
4
Legislation
10%
6 • High: Consistent wren existing lawn and rags
3 - Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1- Low: Conflicts with existing plans and policies'
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorites
25%
5-High
3 • Medium
1 - Low
5
125
)Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parameter scores; maul a 500 420
PRiOR1TY S I TOTAL
i:.,nn ul I,.rr.,nl.•Ifrr :,nun-.1 lrn.irunurn pre .. hG :,, nr, 1 c3-P:.,
RISK M TION POTENTTIAL,; :
: 4'5%
,
1
Scope of Benetts
20%
5 - High: Benefits extend beyond Clty boundaries
3 • Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
Benefits 3 or fewer NET Ceer areas
1 •Low Comer
1
` 'u
20
2
Irnportance of Benefits
20%
6 • High: Needed for essential services:iir•
3 -Medium: Needed for other services •
1 • Low No significant impleations
. j aW
, , 2p
•
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
5. Significant nuisances (e.g., trafc, loss of power. delays) avoided
3 -Moderate nuisances avoided
1 • None
1
10
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3 • Moderate economic loss averted
1 - Minimal economic lots averted
3
45
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
5 - High: )300,000 people
3 -Modem: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1 • Law: <10,000people
_
3
45
8
Repetitive Damages
20%
6 -High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 • Madiulm: Damages from one other event
1 • Lew: No previous damages
5
100
Parameter Subtotal
RJSI< REEDuc floe PC)TLII I Int
100% sum of parameter scores; max ■ 500
,
240
.
coia:r? . .::>:. •:;.
. .<24% .
.. . , .;:.: •';
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
70
i. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: 30 to 3500,000
3 - Moderate: S500K to S5M
1-Lori. >35M
3
_
225
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
5 - Low costs
3 -Moderate costs
1 - High costa
5
125
2
Benefit/ Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is gnaw than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 -Low: Ratio is less than 1
5
200
3
Financing
r
10%
5 • High: Readily avemetie through grants or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds available
1- Love No fundng sources or matching funds are identified
5
SO
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1- Lary. Project is wry costly for the City
5
150
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max s 500
(,urn al t,.00,umd,s sc:ror,•.l + (IT:ryiRlllrn pro .. NI L,r..,o,)
470
III'-;,
• cOn.rn. test wn••• ors cern: Mw,', el' /,•,rA.locnr ttnry rarfirner+rs'; afrrlat .tin matrrerrnnnrinrme'arrrtt row.
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
Weighting Factor.
Points.
30%
134%
25
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
46%
48%
22
COST SUBTOTAL
259.
94%
24
TOTAL
September 1999
boos,
11
Page 9.3t
Mitgation Measure:
Harden Dinner Key Marina Dock Master's
Office
Parameter
weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY 30%
1
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vulnerability and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 • Medium: Oars not tie to an identified vulnerabiley, but is needed
1- Love Does not tie to any LMS goal or plan
5
200
r
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1 - Low: Not likely to be endorsed by the community
5
50 -
3
Environmental impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 - Adverse effect
3
45
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing taws and rags
3 -Medium: New lagislahon or policy changes needed, but no conflicts
identified
1- Low Conflicts with existing piens and policies
5
•
_
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
6-High
3 - Medium
1-Low
5
125
Parameter Subtotal
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
10Zl% sum of parameter scorn; max : 500 470
noire (,1 p,u,un,k:r .x.nw,.) r i,l1, rnnm p,r ,:.lade, •.rnr,•I 9-14;,
(:RfeQUCTtpN.:PDTEMTIAI.':
.
4.51/e. •
.;
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Benefits extend beyond City boundarisa .
3 -Madam: Benefits 4 or more NET Center areas
1- Low Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center areas
1
20
2
importance of Benefits
:
.2016 . .
6 - High: Needed for *arias! services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1 • Low No significant implications
3
r
t30
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays) avoided
3-Moderate nuisances avoided
1-None
3
30
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
16 - Significant economic loss averted
3 - Moderate economic loss averted
1- Minimal economic loss averted
. 3
45
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - High: >300,000 incise
3- Median: 10,000 to 300,000 peep•
1- Low: 410,000 people _
1
v
_
15
6
Repetitive Damages
20%
5 - High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 Damages from other event
5
100
-Median: one
1 • Low: No 'soviets damages
Parameter Subtotal
RISK REDuC 110rl PO H.NTIAI
100% sum of parameter worm; max ■ 500
r .rnr r:l I,.rr.rrri,;, r .., nr. ,I hn.rnrnAi, I'„
210 _
-
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
-
100
i. Initial Cost
' 75%
5 - High: SO to 3500,000
3 - Moderate: 3500K to WM
1 - Low >SSM
5
375
ii, Maintenance/Operating
Costa
25%
6 - Low costs
3 • Moderate costs
1-High costs
5
125
2
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 - Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 - Low: Ratio is less than 1
3
120
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 - Medium: Limited matching funds militia
1- Low: No funding sources or matching fund' are identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
6 - High: Project is easily affordable
3 -Medium: Project a somewhat affordable
1 - Low Project is very costly for the City
3
90
Parameter Subtotal
COST SUBTOTAL
100% sum of parameter scores: max : 500
f'wn 1,I p: u.rnrr101 sr.oi: ;) I I rn,i.urtrurn prr.'.dr6,. ,u, t
340
. _�.--•_ _ _ _... - . -... - ...���-....�. �.....�. .+.n .we,n..nsn�.,.,.,�.gnnn rrceR
4.-W „a.w ..vow w1 � v....,p..v-r -, -. r r..rr.,��,Y r�....,.�.-. �......-. _..� .............. ... . . . - __
T
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
30%
94%
28
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
46%
54%
24
COST SUBTOTAL
251
68%
17
TOTAL
September 1999
611
Page B-32
}
Mitgation Measure:
Study potential Fire Hazards on City -owned
Islands
Parameter
Weighting
Factor
Scoring Criteria
Score
Points
PRIORITY • 30%
1 -
,
Appropriateness of the Measure
40%
6 - High: Reduces vuinerabtity and conforms Local Mitigation Strategy
(LMS) goals and plans
3 - Medium: Does not tie to identifieability, but is needed
1- Law: Does not be to any LMS goal or pan
3
120
2
Community Acceptance
10%
6 - High: Endorsed by entire community
3 -Medium: Endorsed by most may create burdens
1- Lori Not likely to be endorsed by the community
3
30
3
Environmental Impact
15%
6 - Positive effect
3 - No effect
1 -Adverse effect
3
45
4
Legislation
10%
6 - High: Consistent with existing laws and rags
3 -Medium: New legislation or policy changes needed. but no conflicts
identified
1- Low: Conflicts with existing plop end policies
5
50
5
Consistent with City Priorities
25%
5 - High
3 - Medium
1 - Low
3
75
'...,. Parameter Subtotal
PRIORITY SUBTo1-AL
100% sum of parameter scores; max a 500
c.,uni ur p.u.unrru, c,cnna.) / (ire r.rcr u,nr wi•.•.,ld,' ,;, i
320
{. r'i:,
RIIIX REDUCTION POTENTIAL
;':45•Je ... '::,
.. .
1
Scope of Benefits
20%
6 - High: eenetts beyond City baundan's
3 - Medium: Benefits 4 or more NET center Areas
1 - Low. Benefits 3 or fewer NET Center Areas
1
4•6: ; i; .
20
.. •.. _
2
Importance of Benefits
20%
6 - High: Needed for essential services
3 -Medium: Needed for other services
1 - Low: No significant implications
3
Level of Nuisance Avoided
10%
6 - Significant nuisances (e.g., traffic, loss of power, delays)
3 -Moderate nuisances
1- None
3
30 -
4
Economic Effects Avoided
15%
6 - Significant economic loss averted
3 -Moderate economic loss averted
1- Uhilmal economic loss averted
3
45
5
Number of People to Benefit
15%
6 - Nigh: >300,000 pecpa
3 -Medium: 10,000 to 300,000 people
1- Low: <10,000 peopis
3
45
8
Repetitive Damages
20%
5 - High: Damage from multiple previous disasters
3 -Medium: Damages from one other event
1- Low: No previous damages
1
20
Parameter Subtotal
RISK kr:oucrIcart POTEriiiAl
100% sum of parameter scerea; max s 500
_
220
car :....... :; ..:
::ls?c
,. ..
,, , ,
1
Estimated Costs'
20%
100
I. Initial Cost
75%
6 - High: 3 to $500,000
3 -Moderate: $500K to $5M
1-Lair >35M
5
375 —
ii. Maintenance/Operating
Costs
25%
5 - Low casts
3 - Moderate costs
1 -High costa
5
125
Benefit / Cost Ratio
40%
6 - High: Ratio is greater than 4
3 -Medium: Ratio is between 1 and 4
1 - Low: Ratio is less than 1
3
_
120
3
Financing
10%
6 - High: Readily available through grants or matching funds
3 -Medium: Limited matching funds available
1 - Low: No funding sources or matchinlfunds are Identified
3
30
4
Affordability
30%
5 - High: Project rs wily affordable -
3 -Medium: Project is somewhat affordable
1 • Low Project is very cosfhy for the City
5
150
+
Parameter Subtotal
100% sum of parametar scares: max a 500
400
COST SUBTOTAL
r,,,rn ur p:rr,mulcr :,<:,rr,• ,) i,ri.i*uruur, r:.,.. hi. - . Or.) i30`%
2ted ^_0 arc C,T.pri!
ed of Iwo sM:nndary nerametart' initial. and mslntens ncsropera nng casts
Weighting Factor
Points
PRIORITY SUBTOTAL
301
64%
19
RISK REDUCTION POTENTIAL
45%
44%
20
COST SUBTOTAL
25'/4
80%
20
TOTAL
September 1999
100°/
53
Page B-33