Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 033-63000-00; City of Seattle
PW ID# 1829; 37th Avenue, SW
Citation: FEMA-DR-1361-WA, 37th Avenue, SW
Cross-reference: Eligible Work, Site Stability
Summary: On February 28, 2001, the Nisqually Earthquake caused a slide to occur in the City of Seattle, damaging a 200-foot section of 37th Avenue South West. The City of Seattle, the Applicant, made emergency repairs to stabilize the site, and then initiated a geotechnical investigation of the site through its contractor, in part to ascertain the danger to down slope houses. Project Worksheet (PW) 1829 for $52,676.95 was prepared on February 27, 2002, for emergency and permanent road repair and the geotechnical investigation, but made ineligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding until the City stabilized the site.
On August 7, 2002, the Applicant submitted its first appeal, claiming that the work completed to stabilize the site, and examine the geotechnical stability of it, constituted emergency work, and should be funded as such. The Regional Director granted that portion of the appeal for overtime and equipment costs for the emergency repair measures on the site, but denied reimbursement for the geotechnical study.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on March 7, 2003, again requesting payment of the cost of the geotechnical study as emergency work. In its May 7, 2003, letter transmitting the Applicants letter to FEMA, the State stated that the site was stable and the full cost of the geotechnical study and road repairs should be funded as permanent work, in the amount of $52,676.95.
Issues: Can the scope of the Applicants first appeal be expanded to include payment for the cost of permanent repairs, as requested by the State? Can the geotechnical study be funded in the amount of $19,144.09 as Category C work, as requested by the State? Is all or part of the cost of the geotechnical investigation contracted by the City eligible for payment as Category B Emergency Work, as requested by the Applicant in its first and second appeals?
Findings: The scope of the appeal cannot be expanded from that of the original appeal by the City of Seattle. Only the question regarding the eligibility of the geotechnical investigation for reimbursement will be addressed in the second appeal. A full understanding of the forces acting on the residences could not be achieved without more detailed soils analyses, and these are eligible for reimbursement as Emergency Work under 44CFR § 206.225. However, the development of permanent repair options that were included in the report are not eligible for reimbursement as emergency work and will not be funded. The appeal is partially granted.
Rationale: 44 CFR § 206.225