| 1. |
How long has this program
been operational? Year 1 |
| |
|
| 2. |
What are the major
purposes of this program? What problem(s) or issue(s)
was it designed to address? |
| |
|
| |
The creation of Seismic Improvement of Unreinforced Masonry
Dwellings Guide was to provide the general public, engineers, and general contractors with
a guide to assist them in their seismic retrofitting activities. At the time of
development and even today, there is very little information dealing particularly with
unreinforced masonry homes and the means by which to seismically retrofit them. |
| |
|
| 3. |
Describe the specific activities and operations of the program. |
| |
|
| |
The Guide was developed by a local engineering firm. When completed,
a news release was done. A substantial article about the Guide was written in the
newspaper. The Guide was first made available to the WSSPC member states last year at the
Montana Conference. Since then it has been distributed to local area engineering firms,
county E.M. Directors, and Regional Program Managers. It is for sale at cost to the
general public. |
| |
|
| 4. |
Does this program take a
new and creative approach or method? If yes, please describe. |
| |
|
| |
The lack of good information on retrofitting unreinforced masonry
homes is what was the driving force for this guide. The methods of retrofit may be new,
the approach may not be new, but having this new product and placing it into the hands of
people that can utilize it was the most important part of the project. |
| |
|
| 5. |
What were the program’s
start-up costs and source(s) of
funding? |
| |
|
| |
$40,000
Budget Source: 50% FEMA - 50% in-kind Reaveley
Engineers |
| |
|
| |
What are the program’s annual operational costs and source(s)
of funding? |
| |
|
| |
$8,000
Budget Source: EPICenter Program Budget |
| |
|
| 6. |
How many employees
(full-time equivalent) work(ed) with this
program? 1 FTE |
| |
|
| 7. |
To the best of your
knowledge, did this program originate in your state? Yes |
| |
|
| |
Are you aware of similar programs in other states? Yes
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Has the program been
fully implemented? Yes |
| |
|
| |
If No, what actions remain to be taken? |
| |
|
| 9. |
Is there evidence that
the program has been effective in achieving its stated purpose(s)? Briefly summarize evaluations (pro and con) of how well
the program has addressed the defined problem(s) or issue(s). |
| |
|
| |
People call for the Guide, which means there is general awareness of
the Guide with people who seriously want to retrofit their homes. Retrofitting is an
expensive undertaking. These guides are not supposed to move as quickly as an emergency
checklist. The EPICenter is pleased with the general public’s interest, particularly
in Utah, with this guide. |
| |
|
| 10. |
How has the program
changed since its inception? What limitations or obstacles might other
states expect to encounter if they attempt to adopt this program? |
| |
|
| |
Any damaging, recent earthquake will make the guide very popular. |
