Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 087-69112-00; City of Santa Cruz
PW ID# 332; Hazard Mitigation Proposal
Citation: FEMA-1628-DR-CA, City of Santa Cruz, Hazard Mitigation, PW 332
Reference: Hazard Mitigation
Summary: Heavy rains and excessive runoff from the 2005-2006 winter storms caused a slope failure of a hillside that supports a portion of a fairway and cart path at the Delaveaga Golf Course. FEMA prepared PW 332 for $329,426 to restore the cart path and damaged slope. Upon review of the PW, FEMA determined that the slope was not an eligible facility. Consequently, FEMA approved PW 332 Version 0, in the amount of $23,760 to fund the restoration of the golf cart path but denied funding to restore the slope. The Applicant stated in its first appeal that the slope met the definition of an eligible facility. The Regional Administrator agreed and prepared Version 1 of PW 332 increasing total approved funding to $329,426 to include slope restoration. However, the Regional Administrator denied the HMP because it was not cost effective. In a letter dated November 20, 2007, the Applicant requested additional funding and a time extension. The Applicant requested an additional $150,000 for imported soils that were required due to contamination of the original soil. In a letter dated June 8, 2008, the Regional Administrator responded to the Applicant’s request and concluded that the work performed up to that point included the ineligible HMP, which exceeded the approved scope of work. In its second appeal, the Applicant requests that FEMA fund its actual costs of $722,292. The Applicant also argues that Disaster Assistance Policy DAP 9526.1, Hazard Mitigation funding under Section 406 allows certain HMP measures to be 100 percent cost effective and that its HMP fits into this category. The Applicant also requested that FEMA run a new Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) based on final project costs and updated information.
Issues: 1. Has the Applicant demonstrated that its HMP is cost effective?
2. Has the Applicant demonstrated that the additional requested costs are for eligible work?
Findings: 1. Yes.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.226(e), Hazard Mitigation