Bill Overview
Title: Safeguarding Tomorrow through Ongoing Risk Mitigation Technical Corrections Act
Description: This bill revises provisions related to the hazard mitigation revolving loan fund program, including by requiring capitalization grant recipients to carry out the latest two published editions of relevant building codes, specifications, and standards.
Sponsors: Rep. Titus, Dina [D-NV-1]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or benefiting from the improved hazard mitigation and construction practices
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill affects those involved in construction and infrastructure development as it mandates the use of the latest building codes, specifications, and standards in hazard mitigation projects.
- Governments at state and local levels will be impacted as they manage the revolving loan funds and ensure compliance with updated building practices.
- Construction companies and workers are part of the population affected due to the requirement to adhere to the latest building codes.
- Communities and individuals in hazard-prone areas will benefit indirectly as the revised building standards aim to improve safety and resilience.
- The financial sector, specifically entities involved in providing or managing hazards mitigation loans, will be involved in administrating these changes.
Reasoning
- Given the policy description, the primary focus is on construction and infrastructure projects which touch on professional and technical occupation areas.
- Approximately 500,000 individuals in the US are direct or indirect stakeholders in these infrastructural modifications, ranging from government officials and construction workers to affected families in hazard-prone areas.
- The budget scaling initially limits the reach to the most hazard-prone and populous states like Florida and California, though over time, with proper management and extension of practices, most states should see benefits.
- It's likely that most individuals working with or benefiting from these projects will experience an increase in wellbeing, at least for those living or working in higher hazard-prone locations.
Simulated Interviews
Building Inspector (Jacksonville, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy looks like it's about to up our game in mitigating hazards. Florida definitely needs it considering our weather.
- I’m concerned about the initial workload it may cause, but the safety benefits in new building projects are worth it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Civil Engineer (Dallas, Texas)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having to work with the latest building standards will add upfront effort but it can mean more resilient constructions, which is fulfilling as an engineer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm open to updating systems, but it could potentially delay some projects.
- Overall, if this makes my job more stable and secure, I'm for it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
City Planner (Miami, Florida)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These funds and understanding could make my job much easier, allowing a smoother handling of codes and standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Architect (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The standards are something that should help us design better, lasting structures, with floods being so frequent nowadays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Homeowner (San Francisco, California)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad they're taking measures to ensure newer buildings are safer. I've seen what damage earthquakes can do.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Upgrading the infrastructure will possibly make for better investment opportunities, as older buildings tend to depreciate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Contractor (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's time we kept up with the latest codes. Portland has been moving toward greener solutions and this might align perfectly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Government Official (New York, New York)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Bringing newer codes into play will be a logistical challenge, but New York could set benchmarks in urban resilience through this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Loan Officer (Houston, Texas)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These adjustments might mean more paperwork, but the overall clientele and loan security should benefit if buildings are worth more.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $370000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $450000000)
Year 2: $390000000 (Low: $320000000, High: $470000000)
Year 3: $410000000 (Low: $340000000, High: $490000000)
Year 5: $450000000 (Low: $370000000, High: $540000000)
Year 10: $510000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $610000000)
Year 100: $1000 (Low: $800, High: $1200)
Key Considerations
- The burden of new building compliance costs is likely to fall on state and local governments and directly on construction firms.
- Potential need for federal assistance or incentives to ensure widespread adoption and compliance by smaller states or financially constrained local governments.
- Long-term risk reduction and resilience benefits versus short-term cost increases need to be considered in the budget planning.
- Potential challenges in uniformly scaling up training and compliance monitoring across the varied US jurisdictions.