PA ID# 013-92003; Calhoun County Unit Road District
DSR ID# 90185,90188,99182,99183,99189,99190; Equipment Rates; Construction Inspection Costs; Flood Insurance
Citation:FEMA-0997-DR-IL; Calhoun County Unit Road District; PA ID 013-92003; DSRs 90185, 90188, 99182, 99183, 99189, 99190, 99192 and 99194.
Cross Reference: Storms and floods; ineligibility of indirect construction inspection costs; Equipment costs; replacement of a maintenance shed located in a floodplain.
Summary: The Calhoun County Unit Road District requested and received federal assistance from FEMA following the 1993 disaster. Early in 1999, more than five years after the disaster when the projects were being closed out, the applicant made representations for funding additional costs. These costs involved use of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) equipment rates; addition of construction inspection costs; and the replacement of Maintenance Shed #3. Equipment Rates. FEMA responded to the applicant's request by approving a number of DSRs to increase funding based on substituting IDOT equipment rates on projects that were approved in 1993. FEMA subsequently generated DSRs to deobligate the additional funds approved because they were found on review to be ineligible. The Regional Director denied the first appeal for the same reasons and the applicant submitted this second appeal. FEMA did not approve use of IDOT equipment rates at the time of the disaster. The County claimed that it was granted approval to use these rates but a survey of documents and files failed to indicate any such approval. A survey of 10 surrounding Counties showed that nine used FEMA's rates and the tenth used local rates that were equal to or less than FEMA's. The applicant claimed Construction Inspection Costs four years after the disaster. While 3% of project costs may be added for preparing and estimating DSRs, payment is only made based on records showing actual time spent on the task. These costs were, however, not documented because records were not kept. Therefore, FEMA cannot fund them. Regarding the Maintenance Shed issue, FEMA already resolved a second appeal. The Associate Director denied a second appeal on February 29, 2000, finally closing the project.
Issue: Should FEMA fund the additional costs claimed by the applicant for substituting IDOT equipment rates in place of FEMA's rates, the inclusion of construction inspection expenses, and the replacement cost of a maintenance shed that was located in a flood plain?