Recommend we invent a better process for partnering 406 and 404 Mitigation funding to provide a better service for our applicants when PA 406 funding, alone, does not properly fix the damaged facility. I have noticed two problems that seem to make this concept difficult to implement. First, the review and processing of 404 Mitigation funding applications is much more encumbered and time consuming than for the 406 Mitigation Proposals due to different program requirements. And secondly, the state and applicant Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans have funding priorities often inconsistent with restoring the particular damaged facility. As a result, the State Hazard Mitigation Official or higher ranking state officials may not be willing or able to co-align funding without delaying the required construction schedule for restoring the damaged facility. This often results in only a partial or temporary fix to the damaged facility. By combining these two mitigation funding programs, our surviving entities could get a much more resilient facility.
To illustrate the need and using the common example of wind damage to windows on the face of a building. Say of the 100 windows within the wall face, 75 are shattered by wind. PA is charged with replacing them to pre-disaster condition, whose windows had been resistant to a wind speed of 90 MPH. Now say in this case, through 406 Mitigation we could replace these with 125 MPH wind resistance. (see first comment for continuation of concept)