Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 019-27400-00; City of Green Cove Springs
PW ID# 771; Work Eligibility
Citation: FEMA-1785-DR-FL, City of Green Cove Springs, PW 771
Reference: Eligible Work, Insurance
Summary: Tropical Storm Fay damaged two floating docks at the City of Green Cove Springs’ (Applicant) public pier. The Applicant initially claimed $45,775 in contract repair costs and direct administrative costs. On December 8, 2008, FEMA prepared PW 771 for the repair of the two docks at an estimated cost of $8,128. The scope of work included removal and replacement of damaged whalers, fascia boards, tie rods, and one pile roller. The PW stated that the docks were severely twisted, indicating damage to the underside of the docks, and the electrical lines were broken. However, neither the PW scope of work nor the cost estimate addressed the broken electrical lines or potential damage to the underside of the docks. The Applicant’s scope of repairs included replacing five dock pedestals, thread bolts on both docks, and repair of the water and electrical systems. FEMA’s repair estimate of $26,924 did not account for these additional items. In preparing PW 771, FEMA reduced the Applicant’s total claim of $45,775 based on ineligible work ($17,861) and anticipated insurance proceeds ($19,785) for the total eligible cost of $8,128. The Applicant submitted a first appeal, dated April 16, 2009, arguing that FEMA’s scope of work and cost estimate did not account for the electrical or water system repairs. In a letter dated July 28, 2009, the Regional Administrator denied the appeal and responded that the Applicant had not demonstrated that the work to replace the dock pedestals, thread bolts, and repairs to the water and electrical systems, was required as a result of the disaster. On April 7, 2010, the State of Florida’s Division of Emergency Management (State) submitted a letter transmitting the Applicant’s second appeal. The letter argues that the approved version of the PW indicates “there may be further damage to the underside of the dock that cannot be seen.” The State contends that FEMA’s Project Specialist only considered damage that was above the water line. The State further maintains that the Applicant’s insurance company viewed the total claimed cost for repairs as disaster related and the Applicant’s insurance company would not cover these costs if the damage was not the result of Tropical Storm Fay. In its second appeal, the Applicant states that its total repair cost is $41,198, lower than its original claim of $44,785.
Issue: Did the Applicant provide documentation to demonstrate the damage was a direct result of the declared disaster?
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223(a)(1) General work eligibility