Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 003-05312-00; Bellevue Borough
PW ID# PW 3807; Farragut Street Repairs
April 14, 2009
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency
2605 Interstate Drive
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110-9364
Re: Second Appeal–Bellevue Borough, PA ID 003-05312-00, Farragut Street Repairs,
FEMA-1557-DR-PA, Project Worksheet (PW) 3807
Dear Ms. Myslewicz:
This letter is in response to your letter dated October 30, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Bellevue Borough (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $39,863 for improvements to Farragut Street.
Heavy rains flooded Jack’s Run Creek in Bellevue Borough on September 17, 2005, and inundated a 15-foot by 3,120-foot segment of Farragut Street with approximately five feet of water. Floodwaters destroyed the existing bituminous asphalt pavement and damaged a
12-foot by 23-foot by 3-foot section of the street’s embankment. FEMA prepared PW 3807 for $54,270 to repair 3,120 linear feet (LF) of damaged roadway and install approximately 30 cubic yards (CY) of limestone riprap to stabilize the embankment. On April 18, 2008, FEMA conducted a final inspection of the project and determined that the Applicant only restored 1,080 LF of the street. In addition, the Applicant constructed a more substantial pavement than existed before the flood. The improved pavement was outside the approved scope of work for PW 3807. Subsequently, FEMA de-obligated $39,863 from PW 3807.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on May 19, 2008. The Applicant provided a timeline that demonstrated that the work was completed within the regulatory timelines. The Regional Administrator determined that the timeliness of completion of the work was not the reason FEMA de-obligated funding. Rather, FEMA de-obligated funding because the Applicant did not complete the approved scope of work. FEMA determined that additional work the Applicant completed was not required as a direct result of the disaster. The Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s appeal on August 15, 2008.
In its second appeal, submitted October 24, 2008, the Applicant details the decision-making process that it used to determine that an alternate scope of work was necessary. The Applicant conducted site visits and determined that the amount of pavement remaining after the storm was
not sufficient to justify the application of milling. In addition, the Applicant stated that it could only repair 1,080 LF of the roadway without crossing into another municipality’s jurisdiction. Finally, because the roadway receives heavier commercial traffic than it previously reported, the Applicant determined that it was prudent to strengthen this section of roadway.
The Applicant does not dispute the fact that it did not complete the approved scope of work. FEMA reimburses applicants for costs incurred to complete eligible work. Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §206.203(d)(1), Federal grant assistance, Improved projects, states, “If a subgrantee desires to make improvements, but still restore the predisaster function of a damaged facility, the Grantee’s approval must be obtained. Federal funding for such improved projects shall be limited to the Federal share of the approved estimate of eligible costs.”
I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy. Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
James A. Walke
Acting Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Jonathan Sarubbi
FEMA Region III