Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 087-69112-00; City of Santa Cruz
PW ID# 332; Hazard Mitigation Proposal
March 11, 2010
Governor’s Authorized Representative
California Emergency Management Agency
Response and Recovery Division
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, California 95655
Re: Second Appeal–City of Santa Cruz, PA ID 087-69112-00,
Hazard Mitigation Proposal, FEMA-1628-DR-CA, Project Worksheet (PW) 332
Dear Mr. McCarton:
This is in response to your letter dated December 2, 2008, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $392,866 in additional funding for a Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP) and repairs to a slope supporting one of the fairways and a cart path at the Delaveaga Golf Course.
Heavy rains and excessive runoff from the 2005-2006 winter storms caused a slope failure of a hillside that supports a portion of a golf course fairway and golf cart path at the Delaveaga Golf Course owned by the City of Santa Cruz (Applicant). FEMA prepared PW 332 for $319,340 for the repair and restoration of both the golf cart path and a storm-damaged slope near hole 6. During a review of the PW, FEMA determined that the city’s proposed restoration of the slope and the associated (HMP) were not eligible because the slope was not an eligible facility. Consequently, FEMA approved PW 332 Version 0, for $23,760 to fund the restoration of the golf cart path but denied funding to restore the damaged slope and the HMP to install a berm and drainage system to protect the slope.
The Applicant stated in a first appeal, submitted September 20, 2006, that the failed slope met the definition of a facility and thus was eligible for funding under the Public Assistance program. In addition, the Applicant argued that if it did not stabilize and restore the slope, the slope would be subject to future failure, loss of additional fairway, and additional damage to the golf cart path. On April 3, 2007, the Regional Administrator agreed that the slope met the definition of a facility and prepared Version 1 of PW 332 increasing total approved funding to $329,426.
However, the Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s HMP for $84,300 to install a berm and drainage system because it was not cost effective.
In a letter dated November 20, 2007, the Applicant requested a time extension until September 2008 to complete the repair because it wanted to winterize and suspend the project to avoid exposing the slope to winter rains and possible erosion. The Applicant also requested an additional $150,000 for imported soils because the original soil at the site was contaminated and unsuitable for use in repairing the slope and cart path. In a letter dated June 8, 2008, the Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s request for additional funding because some of the work the Applicant performed up to that point included the ineligible HMP.
On December 2, 2008, the California Emergency Management Agency submitted a second appeal to FEMA on behalf of the Applicant requesting reimbursement of its actual costs of $722,292. This amount is $392,866 more than FEMA approved for the project. The Applicant requested $593,950 for the repairs to the damaged slope and cart path and $128,342 for the HMP. The Applicant provided a report from Pacific Crest Engineering, which stated that the existing soils were highly contaminated in some areas requiring imported soils for the project. The Applicant also requested that FEMA perform a new Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) for its HMP based on final project costs and updated information.
The Applicant provided documentation demonstrating that it completed the approved scope of repair work. The actual costs were $545,000, which exceeded FEMA’s estimate by $215,575. The Applicant documented higher actual costs for various items in the scope of work including mobilization, erosion control, cart path repair, project management and final design and engineering costs. The Applicant also documented $10,000 in costs for winterization and repairing the access to the site. These items are eligible for funding, but were not included in FEMA’s scope of work and estimate.
The Applicant provided documentation demonstrating that the actual costs for its HMP was $167,292. FEMA previously calculated the BCA for the HMP using a 20-year recurrence interval for the flooding at the golf course. Upon review of additional information, we have determined that a 10-year recurrence interval is more appropriate. An updated BCA using the 10-year recurrence interval demonstrates that the HMP is cost effective. Therefore, the HMP is eligible.
The Applicant provided documentation to support additional funding for the eligible scope of work. In addition, the HMP is eligible for funding under the Disaster Assistance Policy DAP9526.1, Hazard Mitigation funding under Section 406. Therefore, I approve the second appeal for $392,866. By copy of this letter, I request that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement this determination.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.
Elizabeth A. Zimmerman
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Nancy Ward
FEMA Region IX