Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 037-90316; Barlow Respiratory Hospital
DSR ID# 46229 and 60576; Deobligation of Funding
April 4, 2008
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95655
Re: Second Appeal—Barlow Respiratory Hospital, PA ID 037-90316, Deobligation of Funding, FEMA-1008-DR-CA, Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 46229 and 60576
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This letter is in response to the referenced second appeal forwarded by your office on January 25, 2008. The Barlow Respiratory Hospital (Applicant) is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of its first appeal dated December 5, 2006. The Applicant requests that FEMA obligate a total of $8,284,381 for its Seismic Hazard Mitigation Program for Hospitals (SHMPH) and Grant Acceleration Program (GAP) projects.
In 1999, FEMA approved the Applicant’s participation in the SHMPH program and obligated five Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) for a total of $7,814,301. The SHMPH program was intended to fund the repair and seismic upgrade of hospitals damaged in the Northridge Earthquake in January 1994. Also in 1999, as part of the GAP program, FEMA obligated a total of $470,080 to repair Birge Hall, a building on the Applicant’s hospital campus. Subsequently, the Applicant requested to use the SHMPH funds for an improved project to replace the hospital. It also asked that the GAP project funding be linked to this replacement facility. On December 9, 2004, FEMA informed the Applicant that its funding would be deobligated if a well-defined and viable master plan for a specified site were not submitted by May 31, 2005. The Applicant did not submit such a plan.
FEMA prepared DSRs 46229 and 60576 in September 2006 to deobligate $8,284,381, based on the Applicant’s lack of progress in completing its projects. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on December 5, 2006, stating that it was moving forward in its plans, and that its actions were fiscally prudent. FEMA denied the appeal on July 30, 2007, stating that the Applicant was in effect asking for indefinite time extension and that no progress had been made toward the repair or seismic retrofit of its existing buildings, or the construction of a replacement facility. Furthermore, the Applicant did not know where its facility would be located, or have a master plan, a construction schedule, or evidence of the financial means to complete the project.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on November 30, 2007, stating that since the previous appeal it had made significant progress on its projects and had hired a project manager, decided to build a replacement facility on its property, and begun the entitlement process. It stated that upon completion of the entitlement process it will have a comprehensive master plan for the facility. It also included a projected construction schedule developed by the project manager showing the start of construction in November 2009, with completion in April 2012. In a January 11, 2008, letter the Applicant said that it had held a meeting to discuss the entitlement process and scheduled follow-up meetings.
The basis for the deobligation of the $8,284,381 was the Applicant’s lack of progress toward completing its SHMPH and GAP projects. Based on 44 CFR §206.204(d)(2), no funding may be provided for projects that are not complete before the latest approved completion date. Guidance from FEMA’s Northridge Long-Term Recovery Area Office dated August 13, 1998, and
May 3, 2001, stated that time extensions for SHMPH or GAP projects would be based on the Applicant’s master plan, detailed construction schedule, and explanation of the circumstances contributing to major delays, including justification of how the circumstances were beyond the Applicant’s control.
Based on the information provided in the Applicant’s first and second appeals, the Applicant does not have a comprehensive master plan or detailed construction schedule. In fact, its plan and anticipated project costs changed from the submittal of the first appeal in December 2006 to the second appeal in November 2007. Furthermore, it has not shown that delays were beyond its control. Because the Applicant’s projects were not completed prior to the last approved completion date and it has not provided information warranting a time extension, the appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Carlos J. Castillo
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Nancy Ward
FEMA Region IX