| Course | HLTH 6200 Risk Assessment, Preparedness, and Disaster Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 11 |
| Paper type | Priority memo |
| Length | About 810 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Emergency Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6200 Week 11
Memorandum
To: County Administrator and Budget Director
From: Hazard mitigation planner, Office of Emergency Management
Date: Month Day, Year
Re: Ranked order of six flood mitigation actions, the criterion that sets it and the cost to the actions below the funding line
Bottom Line
With the funding available this year, the county can complete the first two actions below and begin the third. The order is set by one criterion, stated next, and the memo explains what each action below the line loses by waiting. All dollar amounts are teaching values for an invented county.
The Criterion
Actions are ordered by three tests applied in sequence. First, life safety: actions that reduce the chance of deaths come first when they are affordable. Second, people protected per dollar: among the rest, actions that keep essential services running for the most residents per dollar come next. Third, benefit-cost ratio on property losses: remaining actions are ordered by their ratio. This puts the least certain but most serious consequence, loss of life, ahead of the most measurable one, property, which is a deliberate choice the budget office should make knowingly, not by default. A different criterion, such as property benefit-cost ratio alone, would produce a different order.
The Order
1. Gauge-linked warnings, road closures and the nursing home's evacuation plan (about $120,000). First on life safety: it addresses road deaths and the late evacuation of 96 frail residents, at the lowest cost of any action.
2. Floodproofing the wastewater treatment plant ($3.2 million, mostly grant-funded). Second because it protects service for about 52,000 residents, the most people per dollar, with a benefit-cost ratio of about 1.25 at 7% and 2.33 at 3%.
3. Buying out, from willing owners, as many as 60 homes that flood again and again (about $9 million over five years, mostly grant-funded). Third: it removes the homes that flood most often and reduces some life safety risk. This year's funds cover the local share of the first phase only.
Funding line for this year falls here.
4. Elevation standard for new construction (administrative cost only). Below the line in budget terms but recommended for adoption now, since it needs no capital.
5. Downtown flood protection feasibility study (about $250,000). Deferred one year, with the scope drafted now so the study can start quickly once funded.
6. Elevating 40 homes ($6.4 million). Not funded; counting property damage only, its ratio stayed below one at both discount rates.
What the Order Costs the Items Below the Line
The feasibility study. Deferring it a year delays any downtown protection by at least a year. Downtown business owners, who flooded in 1996 and 2011, will see that as the county putting other neighborhoods first, and they are right. The study is deferred because its benefit is information, not protection, and the actions above it protect people now.
Elevation for the 40 homes. Households who want to stay in place rather than accept a buyout will have no county-supported option this cycle. Their homes will continue to flood. The memo recommends offering elevation to any of these households who decline a buyout if a future analysis that values displacement and health effects shows a positive return.
The second and later buyout phases. Funding only the first phase this year means some repetitive-loss households will wait two to four years for an offer. Research on buyouts shows these households are often in the more socially vulnerable parts of a county (Mach et al., 2019), so delay falls on people with the fewest resources to absorb another flood.
Why Not a Different Order
The most likely alternative is to put the downtown floodwall study first, because downtown property values are highest and a structural project would protect the tax base. That order follows a property-value criterion. It is defensible, but it puts information about a costly project ahead of protecting lives and a service used by most of the county, and structural protection carries the risk of encouraging development that raises losses when a barrier is exceeded (Tobin, 1995). Federal planning guidance leaves it to jurisdictions to set their own priorities, provided the basis is explained (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2023); the basis here is life first, then people served.
What Would Change the Order
Three developments would change the order. A grant award covering the full buyout program would move buyouts ahead of plant floodproofing in timing, though not in priority. A new flood that damages downtown heavily would justify accelerating the feasibility study. And if federal methods begin valuing avoided displacement and health effects for elevation projects, action 6 should be reanalyzed. Absent those changes, the order should hold for the coming budget year.
Whatever order the administrator adopts, the memo asks that the criterion be written into the budget narrative. Stating that life safety comes first, then people served, then property returns lets residents and board members see why their neighborhood's project landed where it did, and it gives next year's planner a rule to apply rather than a list to defend from scratch.
References
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2023). Local mitigation planning policy guide (FP 206-21-0002).
Mach, K. J., Kraan, C. M., Hino, M., Siders, A. R., Johnston, E. M., & Field, C. B. (2019). Managed retreat through voluntary buyouts of flood-prone properties. Science Advances, 5(10), Article eaax8995. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax8995
Tobin, G. A. (1995). The levee love affair: A stormy relationship? Water Resources Bulletin, 31(3), 359-367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1995.tb04025.x
What the HLTH 6200 Week 11 instructions ask for
Priority memos generally ask you to put recommendations in order for someone with a limited budget and defend that order. Lead with the bottom line: what can be funded and where the line falls. Spell out the rule behind the sequence, so readers argue with the rule rather than the result. List the actions in order with a sentence or two on each one's place. State plainly what the order costs the actions below the line and the people who depend on them. Answer the most likely alternative order. Name the conditions that would change your order. Write in memo form, for a budget holder rather than an academic reader.
How the HLTH 6200 Week 11 example is put together
The bottom line states that the first two actions and the start of the third can be funded. The criterion section sets three tests: life safety, people protected per dollar and property benefit-cost ratio. The order lists six actions, from warning and evacuation planning at about $120,000 to elevating 40 homes, unfunded, with the funding line after the third. The cost section names downtown owners, households wanting elevation and buyout households who must wait, citing Mach and colleagues. A section answers a property-value ordering, citing Tobin and FEMA's guide. Three conditions that would reorder the list follow, and the closing asks that the criterion appear in the budget narrative.
HLTH 6200 Week 11 rubric: what earns full marks
The reasoning must be explicit. Graders look for a stated criterion that sets the sequence and is applied consistently, rather than an order that simply feels right. The funding line should be clear. Stating what the order costs those below the line, honestly and specifically, is the part that most often separates strong memos from weak ones. Answering the most likely alternative order shows the criterion was tested. Naming conditions that would change the order shows judgment. A memo register suited to budget holders, concise sections and accurate citations make up the rest of the assessment. A memo whose criterion could be handed to next year's planner and applied without the writer present has done its job.
HLTH 6200 Week 11 help from the desk
Priority memos often list every recommendation as high priority, or order them without saying why. Others state a criterion and then depart from it without explanation. Some never acknowledge who loses when an action falls below the line. Write your criterion as a rule someone else could apply, then apply it mechanically and see if you accept the result. Next, for each action below the line, write one sentence on who waits and what that costs them. Our team can write a priority memo for your recommendations that states the criterion and defends the order honestly. Saying who loses is uncomfortable, and that is why it earns credit.
Get a HLTH 6200 Week 11 example written to your instructions
Priority samples argue an order rather than listing one. Instructions plus the recommendations already built are what it takes. First custom sample free, back in 24-48h. The criterion you rank under is a judgment call and it should be yours, defended in your own memo with your own reasoning behind the sequence.
More HLTH 6200 papers and MS in Emergency Management samples
- HLTH 6200 Week 1: Single Hazard Profile
- HLTH 6200 Week 2: Hazard Selection Discussion Post
- HLTH 6200 Week 3: Flood Exposure Summary
- HLTH 6200 Week 4: Flood Likelihood Note
- HLTH 6200 Week 5: Flood Consequence Estimate
- HLTH 6200 Week 6: Hazard Risk Matrix
- HLTH 6200 Week 7: Risk Rating Peer Reply
- HLTH 6200 Week 8: Flood Mitigation Options Menu
- HLTH 6200 Week 9: Mitigation Benefit-Cost Brief
- HLTH 6200 Week 10: Flood Mitigation Plan
- HLTH 6100 Week 11: Practitioner Closing Brief
HLTH 6200 Week 11 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6200 Week 11 sample paper?
You can read the entire priority memo on this page, free.
What criterion sets the order in the HLTH 6200 Week 11 memo?
Life safety first, then people protected per dollar, then benefit-cost ratio on property losses.
Which actions fall above the funding line?
Warnings tied to the river gauge with the nursing home plan, protecting the sewer plant and the opening phase of buyouts.
Who bears the cost of the order?
Downtown business owners waiting for the feasibility study, households wanting elevation and buyout households in later phases.
What would change the order?
A grant covering the full buyout program, a new flood that heavily damages downtown or federal methods that value displacement for elevation projects.