Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 073-91033; Orange County
DSR ID# 95695, 04520; Caspers Wilderness Park Time Extension
Citation: FEMA-1005-DR-CA, PA ID 073-91033, Orange County, DSRs 95695 and 04520, Alternate Project, Caspers Wilderness Park.
Cross Reference: Alternate Project, Time Extension
Summary: The Southern California Fire Storms destroyed or damaged equipment at the Caspers Wilderness Park belonging to Orange County ("County"). DSR 95695 was prepared on December 22, 1993, to fund replacement of those facilities. For a period of approximately 3 < years, the DSR remained in suspension for receipt of insurance information, information that the subgrantee claimed to have sent a number of times. On September 6, 1996, the County again inquired as to the status of the DSR, and requested an alternate project, a request that was denied because the DSR was still suspended. On March 28, 1997, the County again submitted insurance information and requested an alternate project. The request was approved on September 8, 1997. On June 23, the County requested a time extension through September 30, 1999. Final plans and specifications were not provided until March 11, 1999, 18 months after the project was approved. After reviewing the information, FEMA determined that the subgrantee had not cited any circumstances beyond the subgrantee's control that would have precluded completion of the project within the previous 18 months. By letter dated March 30, 1999, FEMA denied the request for a time extension and deobligated all funding because the project had not been completed. On April 14, 1999, the County appealed that decision, citing FEMA's delay in addressing the suspended DSR, environmental issues, and project-scheduling question. OES pointed out that the County had been involved in four Federal and one State disaster since FEMA-1005-DR was declared. The Regional Director denied the appeal by letter dated August 18, 1999. The second appeal was submitted October 19, 1999, restating the same arguments as before.
Issues: Has the County sufficiently supported its request for a time extension to December 31, 1999, based on extenuating circumstances or unusual project requirements beyond its control?
Findings: No, however, there is a basis for providing an extension until September 30, 1999. All work on the approved project that was completed as of that date will be eligible for reimbursement. No additional extension is considered eligible because part of the delay was the responsibility of the County.
Rationale: 44 CFR