Table of Contents
Best Practice: Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, NC
Through extensive stakeholder engagement Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, became one of the first communities in the nation to delineate floodplains and regulate new development according to future conditions. Although a highly controversial strategy when first proposed, those who were initially opposed (including developers, realtors, and local businesses) ultimately endorsed the initiative following several years of discussion and information exchange.
For more information see: Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning, pages 80-81: fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/19261
Once the community has selected appropriate planning tools and strategies to mitigate hazards, they should begin to develop a strategy for implementation. Regardless of the specific tool, common steps for implementation include:
- Identify who to talk to first. Find the staff or agency most knowledgeable on the subject matter. Work with them to identify potential pitfalls, other stakeholders to include in the process, and necessary steps for the implementation program.
- Consider whether or not to assemble a team. Some of the planning tools may require formation of a technical advisory committee or steering committee. Consider whether or not to form such a team, who should serve on that team, and their objectives and scope of work.
- Identify examples from other communities. Most land use planning tools and strategies have been tried and tested elsewhere. Unless this particular tool is new, identify other communities (within a similar context where possible) that have either adopted, or tried to adopt a similar tool or strategy. And don’t be afraid to call! Phone conversations foster more candid discussions about successes and lessons learned.
- Identify funding sources. If the tool or strategy requires financial resources not currently within the budget, it can be helpful to identify grants or other financial mechanisms to help offset those costs before making an “ask” from the general fund. Several funding sources are discussed below in “Available Resources.”
- Develop a timeline for completion. Knowing how long the implementation process will take is critical to managing human resources, juggling multiple projects, and prioritizing competing interests within the community. Preparing an estimated timeline for completion can also help maintain momentum when key tasks, milestones, and deliverables are noted with assigned responsibilities.
Best Practice: City of Longmont, Colorado
As the City of Longmont, Colorado continues to recover and rebuild from major flooding in 2013, it actively keeps the community informed and involved. This includes some creative branding and messaging on its flood information website which contains a section dedicated to “Resilient St. Vrain!” – the City’s collective effort to make the community more resilient to future floods. The website includes succinct language, visual aids, and a series of FAQs to provide clarity on all aspects of the initiative.
For more information see: longmontcolorado.gov/departments/departments-n-z/public-information/flood-information.
Once an appropriate planning tool or strategy has been selected, it will quickly become important to build the case for any required approvals and its subsequent implementation. In some cases the need for the tool or strategy may be quite apparent, the benefits clearly understood, and general support more easily obtained. However it is more likely that there will be some critical questions, concerns, or outright opposition raised on the path to implementation by key stakeholders, elected officials, and the general citizenry.
Similar to the pursuit of any new planning tool or strategy, success relies heavily on adequate public engagement and proper messaging. Some tips and examples for each are provided below.
- Engagement – The community as a whole, and especially the specific stakeholders who may be affected by the implementation of the tool or strategy, should be provided the opportunity to be engaged early and often. Building a successful case starts with thoughtful, well-organized activities to build awareness, solicit feedback, and align actions with community values prior to a formal public hearing or decision on the proposed planning tool or strategy. Complete transparency and two-way communication with all, including those who may oppose and/or perceive adverse impacts of the proposed measure is essential.
- Messaging – Although the methods and mediums for engaging and communicating with people may vary over time, it’s important to stick with a consistent, unified message throughout the process of adopting and implementing the tool or strategy. While there may be different aspects to emphasize with different groups, the overall message should be developed with multiple audiences in mind. Research and practice in the hazards planning field suggest that the key points of that message must be kept clear, concise, and repeated time and time again from multiple sources. Start with the “talking points” provided in the tool descriptions in this guide.
- In talking with elected officials the message should be tailored to focus on the problems or opportunities to be addressed through the proposed planning tool or strategy, and should include data that supports the message whenever possible. Other key tips include:
- Consider what resonates with each local official and their constituents, and address how the proposed measure is specifically linked and can be supportive of their own unique interests or objectives.
- Demonstrate how the proposed measure is consistent with and can enhance other community goals. Be certain to link any co-benefits with the broader social, economic, and environmental drivers for the community.
- Be prepared to address any costs, including opportunity costs and especially the consequences of inaction. Explain how and defend why the proposed measure is the most practical and feasible alternative considered.
Tips on the Network
Be sure everyone in the network has a clear role for engaging in the task, such as a working group member, an expert reviewer, or an advocate/liaison to other groups. Involve those with access to multiple other networks who can serve as intermediaries to organizations such as the fire department, emergency management, government agency staff members, consultants, and others. Finally, keep project goals front and center – conflicts may arise, but having a good facilitator can help navigate these waters and ensure that others’ agendas don’t derail the primary task.
Leveraging existing networks and forming new professional and community relationships to address a task or topic are useful ways to improve planning outcomes. By enhancing connections between organizations and individuals, networks help strengthen community capacity, improve communication, develop resources, and better inform and coordinate specific activities through appropriate expertise.
To successfully tap into existing networks or build a new one, first investigate whether any previous collaborative efforts within the community have been formed to address the topic at hand. There’s no need to re-invent the wheel, but there may be opportunities to strengthen the spokes. For example, if your community decides to develop a new planning tool or update an existing plan, determine if there is a group already dedicated to this topic, such as a coalition, council, or emergency management working group. Some delicate digging will be required to discover how/if the group was successful, who was involved, and which areas of expertise were adequately represented or missing.
Knowing this information will help identify what type of additional expertise, political leadership, and community input is desired for your community’s task. Specifically:
- Identify subject matter experts. Identify individuals or organizations that have recently published relevant and useful information. If the topic is broad and sifting through online search results is overwhelming, determine if there is a local, state, or national non-profit dedicated to this topic. Reach out to them to ask for suggestions on any local experts, resources, or other information.
- Find examples from other communities. Use the examples provided in this guide. Reach out to state offices and professional associations to learn from other communities. Colorado’s State Hazard Mitigation Officer, Colorado Department of Local Affairs, and the Colorado chapter of the American Planning Association may be able to point you to communities who have undertaken similar efforts.
- Identify best practices and additional resources. Contact other state agencies, universities, and branches, for example the Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Geological Survey, and Colorado Association of Stormwater and Floodplain Managers. Depending on your timeframe, attend a local conference where topics of interest will be discussed. For more technical resources, refer to Available Resources.
- Harness political leadership. Determine who may be necessary to lead this effort at a community-wide level. Determine if a local city council member, county commissioner, or other elected official has demonstrated interest in the issue, or whether the Local Fire Chief, Emergency Services or Development Services Director buy into the effort and have recommendations to connect with others.
- Recruit local champions. Determine if there are other citizen’s advocacy groups, neighborhood groups, or other local champions who may be interested in engaging and supporting this cause. Think about people whom show up to meetings, whom are engaged in a previous plan update, or whom might be willing to rally around a new effort.
The Champion: Putting Local Advocates to Work
Decades of research and practice in hazards management suggest that one of the key factors to achieving successful and sustained community risk reduction is the presence of one or more “local champions.” Champions are those influential people who are committed and capable of driving meaningful change within an organization or community. They are often passionate individuals with the skills to understand, communicate, motivate, and engage others in support of achieving their vision or goals—even in the face of obstacles or resistance. For the purposes of advancing community hazard mitigation, there are essentially two types of champions: internal local government employees and external volunteer advocates.
Internal government champions may be elected or executive officials (such as a mayor, county commissioner or town manager) or local agency staff members who have the ability to lead projects, policies, and other initiatives through multiple departments. To be effective, the local government champion must have the knowledge and authority required to enlist the right partners who can provide the leverage needed to drive decisions and actions with the local governing body. For this reason, it is highly advantageous to have local champions at both the appointed and staff levels who are committed to working for hazard risk reduction. Whereas a department head or line staff member may be best positioned to lead the work, an elected or executive official can direct intergovernmental coordination from above, shepherding the involvement of support staff and other resources across various departments to ensure a more comprehensive and cross-sector effort. (Another option communities have pursued is the creation of an executive staff position within the chief executive’s office – for example, a “chief resilience officer” who reports directly to the mayor or county/city/town manager.)
External volunteer champions may be equally if not more important to the success of a community’s hazard mitigation efforts. In many cases it is those outside of local government who can serve as catalysts for change in local policies, programs, or activities relating to natural hazards. External champions may include representatives of outside groups such as private businesses, local media, non-profit or civic organizations such as environmental foundations or homeowner associations—or they may simply be individual citizens advocating on behalf of other constituents. These non-governmental advocates can be powerful drivers and partners of community risk reduction by enhancing public outreach and engagement in ways that can complement local government action. They can be especially important for smaller communities with minimal staff or limited capability to implement hazard mitigation efforts on their own.
The question local governments need to ask is whether or not to embrace the concept of hazard mitigation to safeguard the health, safety, and welfare of their community—or treat it as another federal mandate that needs to be satisfied.
An important measure of success for any of the tools profiled in this report is how the tools are ultimately implemented and enforced. In many communities, good ideas are often ignored or forgotten by political leaders because they are not supported by an effective implementation strategy. The Citizen’s Guide to Planning identifies important concepts to help ensure that ideas are likely to be implemented:
- Prioritized. Make sure the steps for implementation are categorized by priority, making it clear to decision-makers and the community what needs to happen to move an idea forward, both in the short and long term.
- Politically realistic. Develop a strategy that is responsive to the local political climate. Consider your top priorities from the first step, and ask yourself how to communicate the value to your leaders.
- Financially realistic. A good planning tool will account for all costs of implementation, and increases confidence in the community that their local government is being transparent and a good steward of public funds.
- Time realistic. Understand that complex tools take time. Be realistic based on current capacity when estimating timelines for implementation.
- Accountable. Define responsible parties for implementing a strategy or planning mechanism. For more complex or longer-range projects, provide updates to community leaders on the status of those projects.
- Understandable to citizens. Avoid planning jargon, and keep it as short and simple as possible while providing adequate background on the issues and solutions (Duerksen, Dale, & Elliott, 2009).
Once a program, policy, or tool has been adopted, planners must regularly maintain and enforce it. Many communities struggle to balance regulations that are “good ideas” versus those they have the capacity to enforce. That concept should be considered for any planning tool or strategy mentioned in this document.
As John F. Kennedy once said, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long range risks of comfortable inaction.” Similarly, as stated in the 2010 APA publication, Hazard Mitigation: Integrating Best Practices into Planning, “Postponing the confrontation with reality that hazard mitigation planning entails is simply unsound public policy. Tomorrow may be the day when an earthquake strikes, a flood inundates, or an unstable hillside tumbles and falls.”
Local governments do have a choice. Hazard mitigation involves taking sustained action to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from hazards. The costs of inaction may be disasters, from which taxpayer money is required to recover. Substantial post-disaster funding assistance may be available through federal or state disaster declarations; however, local governments will always share in the costs of disasters—both directly and indirectly.
An independent study by the National Institute of Building Sciences found that every dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of four dollars (Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves, 2005, p. 5). Therefore, it should be seen as a fiduciary responsibility of local government to take the time to thoughtfully consider projects or initiatives that reduce the potential impacts of hazards within their jurisdiction.