Follow FEMA:
Highland Lake Dam
Main Content
Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Cross-reference: Unsupported Project Costs
Summary: Severe flooding in October 1996 caused significant damage to the Highland Lake Dam in the City of Westbrook (City). As a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared a DSR for $1,175,850 for its replacement and engineering costs. In August 1999, the City awarded a 120 calendar-day construction contract and issued a Notice to Proceed beginning on September 7, 1999. Following project completion, the City submitted a letter dated June 30, 2000, to the Maine Emergency Management Agency (State) requesting additional funds in the amount of $331,541. FEMA and a Technical Assistance Contractor (TAC) reviewed the request and, subsequently, FEMA prepared DSR 58003 for $75,999 to adjust the final cost of the project. The City submitted a first appeal on July 18, 2002, claiming that the excess costs were reasonable and necessary for the proper completion of the project and, therefore, eligible for reimbursement from FEMA. The FEMA Region I Regional Director partially approved the appeal on April 10, 2003, granting the City $96,683 in additional costs. The Regional Director denied the remaining $158,859 because it was not adequately supported by documentation and determined to be ineligible. The City submitted its second appeal on June 13, 2003, requesting that FEMA reconsider the remaining $158,859 as eligible. The request is based on the Citys claim that these costs are adequately supported by documentation that establishes that they are eligible. The State supports the Citys appeal.
Issues: Are the additional costs eligible for reimbursement?
Findings: No. The documentation does not support any additional reimbursement. Instead, it indicates that some of the additional reimbursements in the first appeal determination were for ineligible expenses and should not be made.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.205(b)
Second Appeal Summary
FEMA-1143-DR
PA ID# XXX-XXXXX; City of Westbrook
DSR ID# 58003; Highland Lake Dam
06/17/2004
Citation: FEMA-1143-DR-ME; City of Westbrook, Highland Lake Dam; Damage Survey Report (DSR) 58003 PA ID# XXX-XXXXX; City of Westbrook
DSR ID# 58003; Highland Lake Dam
06/17/2004
Cross-reference: Unsupported Project Costs
Summary: Severe flooding in October 1996 caused significant damage to the Highland Lake Dam in the City of Westbrook (City). As a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared a DSR for $1,175,850 for its replacement and engineering costs. In August 1999, the City awarded a 120 calendar-day construction contract and issued a Notice to Proceed beginning on September 7, 1999. Following project completion, the City submitted a letter dated June 30, 2000, to the Maine Emergency Management Agency (State) requesting additional funds in the amount of $331,541. FEMA and a Technical Assistance Contractor (TAC) reviewed the request and, subsequently, FEMA prepared DSR 58003 for $75,999 to adjust the final cost of the project. The City submitted a first appeal on July 18, 2002, claiming that the excess costs were reasonable and necessary for the proper completion of the project and, therefore, eligible for reimbursement from FEMA. The FEMA Region I Regional Director partially approved the appeal on April 10, 2003, granting the City $96,683 in additional costs. The Regional Director denied the remaining $158,859 because it was not adequately supported by documentation and determined to be ineligible. The City submitted its second appeal on June 13, 2003, requesting that FEMA reconsider the remaining $158,859 as eligible. The request is based on the Citys claim that these costs are adequately supported by documentation that establishes that they are eligible. The State supports the Citys appeal.
Issues: Are the additional costs eligible for reimbursement?
Findings: No. The documentation does not support any additional reimbursement. Instead, it indicates that some of the additional reimbursements in the first appeal determination were for ineligible expenses and should not be made.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.205(b)