Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 199-99199-00; Hardin County
PW ID# 2834; Eligible Work
January 11, 2010
Governor’s Division of Emergency Management
P.O. Box 4087
Austin, Texas 78773-0220
Re: Second Appeal–Hardin County, FEMA-1606-DR-TX, PA ID 199-99199-00,
Eligible Work, Project Worksheet (PW) 2834
Dear Mr. Colley:
This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated April 16, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Hardin County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $178,439 in additional funding for road repair that exceeded the approved scope of work.
In September 2005, Hurricane Rita caused damage to portions of Pinewood Boulevard, which is located in the Pinewood Subdivision. Floodwaters from the hurricane penetrated the road surface and weakened the road base. Heavy trucks removing debris from the subdivision streets caused the roadway surface to deflect and break apart. On April 11, 2006, FEMA prepared PW 2834 for $83,134 to patch and resurface 5,273 square yards of the damaged road surface. At the time that FEMA prepared the PW, the Applicant had completed debris removal from the subdivision streets, but debris remained on private property. In June 2006, the Applicant awarded a contract to resurface approximately 15,000 square yards of road in the Pinewood Subdivision. The Applicant completed the work in October 2006 and is seeking additional funding of $178,439.
In its first appeal, the Applicant asserted that continued debris removal operations from private property and a timber salvage operation by a private citizen further damaged the roads after FEMA prepared PW 2834. Therefore, the patching and resurfacing of the road as indicated on PW 2834 was not an effective repair option. In addition, the Applicant argued that FEMA did not include all of the roadway damage in PW 2834 and it was unable to contact FEMA to re-assess the damage. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal for two reasons. First, the Regional Administrator determined that the additional damage was not a direct result of Hurricane Rita rather increased heavy truck and equipment traffic during debris removal operations and the timber salvage operations caused the damage. Second, the Applicant performed repair work that exceeded the approved scope of work by resurfacing Pinewood Boulevard in its entirety and FEMA did not have an opportunity to inspect the damages before the work was completed.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on February 16, 2009 reiterating its position in the first appeal. Additionally, the Applicant refutes the Regional Administrator’s determination that the road damage was not caused by the disaster asserting that the private property debris removal and timber salvage operations were required as a result of Hurricane Rita. In support of its appeal, the Applicant submitted documentation related to the road repair contract and the timber salvage operation.
The repair of damage to eligible facilities that results from the performance of eligible emergency work may be eligible for assistance under the Public Assistance program. The scope of work that FEMA recorded in PW 2834 in April 2006 described disaster-related damage, included damage caused during the eligible debris removal operations. The Applicant did not initiate the road repair until June 2006, when debris removal from private property and the timber salvage operation was complete. Any additional damage to the roads that occurred between April and June are not eligible for reimbursement because the disaster did not directly caused the damage and the additional damage did not result from the performance of eligible emergency work. Heavy trucks associated with a private logging operation used the Applicant’s streets between April and June. Any damage to the streets that was caused by the private trucks is not eligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance program.
FEMA’s regulation at 44 CFR §206.204 Cost overruns requires subgrantees to submit requests for additional funding through the Grantee to the Regional Administrator for a final determination. All requests for additional funding must contain sufficient documentation to support the eligibility of all claimed work and costs. The Applicant did not submit a cost overrun request to the Grantee until after it completed the road repairs. The request did not include any documentation to support its assertion that there was additional disaster-related damage to the roads beyond what FEMA identified in PW 2834.
Based on a review of all information submitted with the appeal, I have determined that the Applicant did not submit any compelling documentation to support its assertion that PW 2834 did not reflect all disaster-related damage to its roads. The Regional Administrator’s decision on the first appeal is consistent with program regulations and policies. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.
Elizabeth A. Zimmerman
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Gary Jones
Acting Regional Administrator
FEMA Region VI