Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan: 10. Floods

Home

Chapter 10:Hazard Analysis—Floods First, a check was made of whether all structures on the NFIP Claims list would still be considered repetitive losses, i.e., having 2 or more losses of more than $1,000 within a ten- year period.All properties on the list met these criteria. Refer to Table 10-1. Second, a check was made of whether any of the properties would fall under the TCC (Increased Cost of Compliance) coverage funding criteria, i.e., two or more substantial damage losses in the past ten years, with each loss being 25% or more of the market value of the structure per occurrence. None of the losses would have qualified for this additional coverage. Third, FEMA's national Severe Repetitive Loss Strategy criteria was used to identify structures with higher priority for mitigation, i.e., insured structures with four or more losses, and structures with 2 or more losses where cumulative payments have exceeded the property value. Nineteen of the 50 properties met the criteria to be classified as target repetitive loss structures. It may be recommendable to determine whether there are any insured properties adjacent to these 19 target repetitive loss structures that should be considered in any specifically proposed mitigation action. The list includes the cumulative property values of these 19 structures (about$52AM). Then, the NFIP Claims list was sorted using the above criteria and whether they are currently insured and by descending total cumulative claim amount, and given a ranking ordinal from 1 to 50. Nearly all the repetitive loss structures are located at coastal sites. All but one of the target 19 properties is pre-FIRM. All repetitive loss properties have been mapped with specific identification of those residential properties falling within the FEMA target criteria. Eight properties (ordinals 12 to 19), have made claims in the past meeting the target criteria, but are not currently insured. Five properties (ordinals 7 to 11) are currently insured under Special Direct Facility(SDF). With regards to mitigation, then acting administrator Robert Shea of FEMA's Federal Insurance Mitigation Administration testified to Congress as follows in 2001: "A factor to be considered in offering assistance to the owners of these target properties — whether they choose to move out of the flood plain or to improve their properties—is how to treat those who refuse such an offer. Most people living in these high-risk areas are looking for help to alleviate their plight. However, there will be those who, for various reasons, are reluctant to move. This approach to addressing repetitive loss properties will receive public acceptance only if it is voluntary, and it will be important to provide an insurance consequence to the decision not to accept an offer of assistance. Alternatives proposed have included denying further insurance coverage, requiring that full actuarial rates be paid for future coverage, and substantially increasing deductibles to have those who refuse to move shoulder a greater portion of their cost of recovery. It is our belief that shifting more of the financial burden to the property owner is a more effective incentive than the denial of insurance." Accordingly, it appears that uninsured properties with higher losses (those in the gray portion of the list, ordinals 12 to 19) would not be targeted for mitigation, as there would be no insurance consequence to the decision not to accept an offer of insurance. There may be good reason to examine these cases to determine why they are not continuing under 10-19 Hawaii County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan