Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 037-00000; Los Angeles County
DSR ID# 73830/73832/73836; Eaton Canyon Park
Citation: FEMA-1005-DR-CA; Eaton Canyon Park
Cross Reference: Disaster-related Damages, Improved Project, Timing of Appeal
Summary: The October 1993 Altadena Fire damaged eight areas of parkland and support facilities. Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 73830 and 73836 were approved in April 1994, for landscaping, sprinkler system, and fencing ($55,000) and maintenance building replacement and contents ($40,666), respectively.
DSR 73832 was prepared for demolition, debris removal, and replacement of the Nature Center building and its contents ($992,676). The subgrantee claims it concurred with the scope of work but not the dollar amount. In a re-evaluation, the cost per square foot was less than the DSR team's original cost estimate. The OES reviewer concurred and concluded that the applicant's non-concurrence was unjustified. DSR 73832 was approved in November 1994. In March 1997, the subgrantee sent a letter requesting an improved project to OES. The improved project included use of fire retardant roofing materials and a 1,200 square feet increase in the area of the structure of (for a total estimated project cost of $1,703,182). The subgrantee requested an increase in funding for all three DSRs of 35% for "soft costs" based on past experiences with similar projects and increases in actual costs. FEMA responded to the request as a first appeal and denied the appeal because it was received by FEMA over two years after its prior determination. In February 1998, OES forwarded the subgrantee's second appeal that argues that the request for additional funding should not have been managed as a first appeal and requests funding of soft costs, including management, permitting/design, review, soils and material testing. The subgrantee also states that the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the City of Pasadena's requirement to be connected to the sewer line were not addressed in the DSRs. OES supports the second appeal.
Issues: Are the additional costs eligible for funding?
Findings: Yes. The scope of work did not include allowable soil and material testing, ADA compliance, and permitting costs. These are eligible. However, funding for other work is limited to the initial estimated project cost, because this is an improved project.
Rationale: 44 CFR 206.203(d)(1).