Debris Removal

February 12, 2008

Mr. W. Craig Fugate
Director
Florida Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Re: Second Appeal – Hillsborough County, PA ID 057-99057-00, Debris Removal,
FEMA-1561-DR-FL, Project Worksheets (PWs) 2399 and 2430

Dear Mr. Fugate:

This letter is in response to letters from your office dated May 9, 2007, and May 14, 2007, transmitting the referenced second appeal on behalf of Hillsborough County (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of reimbursement for costs associated with removing debris from private roads and stumps throughout the County following Hurricane Jeanne.
FEMA prepared PW 2399 for $644,705 to remove debris from county roads, but denied funding of $11,637 to remove debris from private roads. FEMA determined that the Applicant did not demonstrate it had legal responsibility to perform the work as required by 44 CFR §206.223. FEMA also prepared PW 2430 for $131,819 to remove eligible hazardous stumps from public rights-of-way and property, but denied $3,545,306 in funding to removal stumps from ineligible locations.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on June 27, 2006, claiming that its solid waste collection ordinance provided the legal responsibility for removing storm-generated debris from private roads. It also claimed that all stumps removed from the rights-of-way and roadway clear zones were eligible and should be reimbursed at the pre-negotiated contract prices. The Regional Director denied the Applicant’s first appeal on November 13, 2006, stating that the Applicant did not submit sufficient documentation to support its claim that it had legal responsibility to remove storm-related debris from private roads. The Regional Director also denied the request for reimbursement of costs for removing stumps because of documented ineligible stump removal work performed by the contractor, incorrect stump measurement, and stumps that were brought to the rights-of-way were correctly paid at the vegetative debris removal price instead of a per- stump price.

The Applicant submitted second appeals under separate cover letters associated with each PW on February 9, 2007. The Applicant reasserts that its solid waste collection ordinance provides legal responsibility for debris removal on private roads. The Applicant also states that incorrect field practices related to stump removal work were promptly corrected and a FEMA Headquarters memorandum dated May 13, 2005, supports its position that all stumps in the rights-of-way,

regardless of extraction, are eligible for reimbursement. The Applicant also included a regression analysis intended to show that it had collected more eligible stumps than FEMA gave it credit for and claims that FEMA did not apply its stump conversion factors appropriately.
A review of the Applicant’s solid waste collection ordinance, County Ordinance Chapter 13, shows that the Applicant conducts curbside solid waste collection for residential customers on both publicly and privately maintained roadways. Also, pursuant to Sec. 13-21, Disaster Relief, “…in the event of a hurricane, tropical storm, severe disturbances, riot or other calamity, the county may require a franchise collector to remove and dispose of excess solid waste....” Based on this ordinance, the Applicant is legally responsible for the collection and removal of residential solid waste and debris, including disaster-related debris that is placed on the curb of public or private roads.

The regression analysis and stump survey submitted by the Applicant do not address the primary reason the first appeal was denied; specifically, that the Applicant removed stumps from locations that FEMA deemed ineligible at the time the work occurred. Also, the Applicant’s assertion that a memorandum dated May 13, 2005, from Mr. Daniel Craig, then FEMA’s Director of Recovery, allowed for the reimbursement for all stumps in the rights-of-way is not correct. The May 13 memorandum superseded the Disaster Specific Guidance #17, Eligibility of Stump Removal Costs, dated November 30, 2004, for only those stumps removed prior to November 30, 2004. This guidance did not convey eligibility to stumps removed from ineligible locations. FEMA performed a validation survey of the lists of stump removal locations and determined that 98 percent of the surveyed stumps were removed from ineligible locations. The Applicant has not submitted any additional documentation to refute this eligibility determination. Therefore, stumps that the Applicant removed from ineligible locations are not eligible for reimbursement.
Based on a review of all information submitted with the appeal, I have determined that the Applicant has legal responsibility to remove debris from private roads. Therefore, I am approving this part of the appeal. However, the Applicant has not submitted sufficient information to support its claim that it removed stumps from only eligible locations. Accordingly, I am denying this part of the appeal. 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. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR § 206.206.

Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Major P. May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV