Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the My Safe Florida Home topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee hears data and limits on My Safe Florida Home grants as members press on premium impact
Summary
Officials told the Insurance and Banking Subcommittee that My Safe Florida Home grants cover specific wind‑mitigation work up to $10,000 and that roughly 122,000 inspections produced about 63,000 grant applications, with about 40,700 reimbursements totaling $384 million issued to date; members pressed administrators on why broad premium reductions have not emerged.
Steven Fielder, chief business officer for the My Safe Florida Home program at the Florida Department of Financial Services, told the Insurance and Banking Subcommittee that the state program pays for specific wind‑mitigation upgrades — roof‑deck attachments, roof‑to‑wall connections, secondary water resistance and opening protection — and is designed to help homeowners harden single‑family site‑built homes against hurricanes.
Fielder said the program offers two grant streams: a low‑income stream with no match requirement and a matching grant in which the state contributes $2 for every $1 the homeowner invests, with the state contribution capped at $10,000. He described statutory eligibility limits: the home must be site‑built single‑family with a homestead exemption, the insured value of the structure must be $700,000 or less (Fielder emphasized this is insured value, not market or assessed value), and the home must have been built before July 2008. Effective July 1, 2025, the program limits awards to low‑ and moderate‑income homeowners and requires that an initial inspection be no more than 24 months old.
Fielder explained the application flow: an initial inspection (using an OIR form plus an extended report) documents what mitigation items a home already has and what it lacks; homeowners can then choose a licensed contractor, submit an application with contractor license information (a process change intended to ensure licensed contractors are used), complete the work and receive a final inspection before reimbursement. "We want to make sure you're using a licensed contractor," Fielder said when describing the contractor verification step.
On program activity and spending, Fielder said the program completed roughly 122,000 initial inspections, received about 63,000 subsequent grant applications, and had about 40,719 reimbursement checks cut — totaling about $384,000,000 disbursed as of his slide snapshot. He cautioned that some numbers are snapshots that change daily as applicants move through the process and that earlier statutory exemptions for low‑income participants created gaps in available premium data.
Members pressed on the program's return on investment. Vice chair Cassell said the state has appropriated “about $914,000,000” over recent years and asked why reductions in homeowner premiums are not showing across the board. Fielder replied that the larger appropriation is not the same as the amount already paid out and that many awards remain pending completion: "The difference between those ... is the people who we have awarded grants to that we're waiting for them to finish their work," he said, adding that the program can try to provide more data for the committee's annual report. He also noted the program is focused on low‑ and moderate‑income households — typically smaller, lower‑insured‑value homes that will show smaller premium deltas than larger homes.
Members also asked operational questions about timing and barriers. Rep. Hart asked how long applicants wait for approval; Fielder said average turnaround to hear back after application submission is about 10–15 business days but can lengthen during portal openings. On why many initial inspections do not immediately produce reimbursements, Fielder cited common barriers: homeowners finding they lack matching funds, changing contractors, selling the property, or facing life events; he said the program has surveyed participants to better understand those barriers.
On exclusions and scope, members pointed out that mobile homes are not eligible. Fielder confirmed that mobile‑home tie‑down programs existed in earlier program iterations but were not funded in the 2022 restart; he said extending work to mobile homes would require deciding what retrofit scope to fund and likely legislative or rule changes.
Fielder said the program operates with relatively low overhead: "this program does function at an overhead of less around 5%," he told the committee, and invited members to propose policy changes to refine eligibility, targeting or processes. He noted the program reports annually to the committee and that the 2025 annual report is due back to the committee by Feb. 1.
