Audit: Fortify Homes grants typically pay for themselves; lawmakers press for better outreach and minimum insurer discounts

Louisiana Legislative Auditor Mike Waguespack presented an informational report to the Senate Insurance Committee detailing the Louisiana Fortify Homes Program, a state grant program that covers up to $10,000 toward upgrading a roof to the Fortified standard. Auditors and staff told senators that most recipients reported meaningful premium savings and high satisfaction with finished work, while lawmakers pressed for expanded outreach to lower-income homeowners and a possible statutory minimum insurer discount tied to state funding.

The report matters because Louisiana households in many coastal parishes pay among the highest homeowners insurance premiums in the Southeast; program boosters say Fortified roofs reduce claim exposure and can help make reinsurance and private market capacity more available. "This is a grant of up to $10,000 to a homeowner to put a fortified roof on their home," said Ed Seiler of the legislative auditor—staff, summarizing the program mechanics and Fortified—levels.

Auditors said the program has produced measurable savings for participants. Surveyed recipients reported a median annual premium reduction of about $1,250 (roughly 22 percent), auditors said, and the median total cost to install a Fortified roof was $16,229 before the LFHP grant. Auditors estimated the median participant—would realize a 15-year present-value benefit of roughly $17,879 from insurance discounts and reduced uninsured losses, exceeding the median total cost before the grant. Program take-up is concentrated: auditors said 82 percent of recipients were in Orleans, Jefferson and St. Tammany parishes.

But senators and other committee members pressed officials on equity and implementation details. Senator Beth DuPlessis, citing constituent complaints, said some applicants faced tight timelines and unexpected out-of-pocket costs that made participation impractical for lower-income homeowners. "We—are using state money to give to residents and homeowners who would get less than the average or not be guaranteed a minimum discount," DuPlessis said, urging further analysis on whether the state should require a floor on insurer discounts when state grants are used. The idea of a statutory minimum discount drew pushback from Commissioner Tim Temple, who warned that an across-the-board floor could discourage insurers from writing policies if their actuaries find a given discount unjustified.

Commissioner Tim Temple told the committee the Department of Insurance publishes company discounts so prospective applicants can check likely savings before signing up. "We always encourage everybody, look and see what that discount is before you... don't get in a situation where we've got the grant, we did the roof, we don't like the discount," Temple said. He also said the department is exploring a permanent, dedicated funding source: redirecting a portion of fees assessed to insurers, agents and adjusters into the grant program so funding would be stable year to year.

Lawmakers and auditors discussed additional program changes, many of them already under way. Auditors and the department said they are piloting nonprofit partnerships to help low- and moderate-income homeowners bridge appraisal and contractor-payment gaps; the department said it is testing programs that would pay evaluation fees for qualifying applicants. Auditors also flagged that Fortified requirements start with "roof" (secondary water barrier, stronger fasteners), then add window and door improvements at higher levels (silver, gold), and that Fortified certification must be rechecked on a 5- and 10-year schedule to maintain insurer discounts.

Senators pressed for more transparency about how much discount recipients actually receive and whether the state should require a minimum discount tied to state funding. DuPlessis said she wants the legislative auditor to examine whether state dollars should come with a guaranteed minimum premium reduction; Seiler and Waguespack said the office could perform a follow-up study. Temple said he would pursue more outreach and work with non profits and the congressional delegation to align federal rebuilding funds with Fortified standards.

The presentation also noted practical constraints: the median reported extra cost to achieve Fortified beyond a code-compliant reroof was about $3,248 (the remainder of the $16,229 median cost was typical code-compliant reroofing that homeowners would eventually face). Auditors said the program has expanded rapidly since 2023 but remains small relative to coastal housing stock; auditors estimated certificates issued per month would need to increase roughly 275 percent from recent rates to reach 25 percent Fortified coverage by the target date cited in comparative analyses.

Committee members vowed follow-up. "If you have any instances like that—or anyone that has constituents that say that I got a fortified roof, it's more expensive now, please let me know. And we will look into that," Temple said. Auditor staff and the department agreed to continue work on outreach, low-income pilots and a possible legislatively requested study on a minimum discount.

The committee moved next to a separate agenda item on automobile rates after the Fortify discussion concluded.