This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Debris Removal
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1491-DR-VA, City of Richmond
Cross-reference: Debris Removal
Summary: Heavy rains and high winds from Hurricane Isabel in September 2003 deposited debris on public and private property including downed trees and limbs posing threats to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Richmond (Applicant). FEMA prepared 26 PWs for a total of $7,035,940 to fund eligible debris removal work. Specifically, PW 60 included funding for the removal of eligible hazardous stumps. FEMA denied $181,421 in funding associated with contract costs for the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches and less in diameter that were paid on a per-stump unit-cost basis. FEMA reimbursed the Applicant for the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches as less on an equivalent cubic-yard basis, using stump conversion factors. The Applicant submitted its first appeal on May 7, 2007. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal on July 27, 2007, because the Applicants contract was not consistent with FEMAs historical practice and policy in place at the time of the disaster which paid for removal of stumps measuring 24 inches and less on a cubic-yard basis, using stump conversion factors. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on December 20, 2007.
Issues: Is the Applicant eligible for per-stump unit cost reimbursement for removal of stumps measuring 24 inches and less?
Findings: No. FEMAs historical practice and policy is to reimburse stumps measuring 24 inches and less on a cubic-yard basis. Stumps measuring 24 inches in diameter and less do not require special equipment for removal, and therefore, are reimbursed on the reasonable cost per cubic yard, using stump conversion factors.
Rationale: FEMA 325 Debris Management Guide (April 1999), Appendix F
Appeal Brief
Disaster | FEMA-1491-DR |
Applicant | City of Richmond |
Appeal Type | Second |
PA ID# | 760-67000-00 |
PW ID# | Project Worksheet 60 |
Date Signed | 2008-10-14T04:00:00 |
Appeal Letter
October 14, 2008
Michael M. Cline
Governors Authorized Representative
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
10501 Trade Court
Richmond, VA 23236
Re: Second AppealCity of Richmond, PA ID 760-67000-00, Debris Removal,
FEMA-1491-DR-VA, Project Worksheet (PW) 60
Dear Mr. Cline:
This letter is in response to your letter dated December 20, 2007, transmitting the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Richmond (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of reimbursement for costs associated with the removal of hazardous tree stumps following Hurricane Isabel in September 2003.
Heavy rains and high winds from Hurricane Isabel deposited debris on public and private property, including downed trees and limbs that posed threats to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Richmond. FEMA prepared 26 PWs for a total of $7,035,940 to fund eligible debris removal work. Specifically, PW 60 included funding for the removal of eligible hazardous stumps. FEMA denied $181,421 in funding associated with contract costs for the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches and less in diameter that were paid on a per-stump unit-cost basis. FEMA reimbursed the Applicant for the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches and less in diameter on an equivalent cubic-yard basis, using stump conversion factors.
On May 7, 2007, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) submitted a first appeal on behalf of the Applicant. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal on July 27, 2007, because the Applicants contract pricing structure for the removal of hazardous stump removal measuring 24 inches and less was not consistent with FEMA policy and costs were not reasonable. The Regional Administrator asserted that it was FEMAs historical practice and policy since 1999 that stumps measuring less than 24 inches in diameter would be treated as burnable debris and paid on a cubic-yard basis.
VDEM forwarded the Applicants second appeal to FEMA on December 20, 2007. The Applicants second appeal makes the following arguments: (1) the contract was properly procured and therefore contract costs established are reasonable, including payment for the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches as less on a per-stump basis, and (2) the Applicant acted with the consent of FEMA staff that provided misinformation about FEMA policies.
FEMA agrees that the Applicants contract was properly procured in accordance with 44 CFR Part 13. However, the contract includes cost items that are not consistent with FEMA policy regarding stump removal payment that was in place at the time of the disaster. FEMAs historical practice and policypublished in the 1999 edition of the FEMA 325 Debris Management Guideis to reimburse the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches and less on a cubic-yard basis. Stumps measuring 24 inches in diameter and less do not require special equipment for removal and, therefore, are reimbursed on the basis of reasonable cost per cubic yard, using stump conversion factors. The stump conversion factors that the Regional Administrator used are applicable, comprehensive, and provide a reasonable estimate of the volume of debris from a given tree stump.
Also, despite the Applicants assertion that FEMA staff provided misinformation about FEMA policies, rules, and regulations, the Applicant does not provide any documentation to support this in its appeal. Ultimately, it is the Applicants responsibility to follow all applicable local, State, and Federal laws, regulations, and policies that are available to the public on the internet and through other sources in the public domain.
Based on all information submitted with the appeal and the reasons stated above, I have determined that the Regional Administrators decision on the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, the Applicants second appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Jonathan Sarubbi
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region III
Michael M. Cline
Governors Authorized Representative
Virginia Department of Emergency Management
10501 Trade Court
Richmond, VA 23236
Re: Second AppealCity of Richmond, PA ID 760-67000-00, Debris Removal,
FEMA-1491-DR-VA, Project Worksheet (PW) 60
Dear Mr. Cline:
This letter is in response to your letter dated December 20, 2007, transmitting the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Richmond (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) denial of reimbursement for costs associated with the removal of hazardous tree stumps following Hurricane Isabel in September 2003.
Heavy rains and high winds from Hurricane Isabel deposited debris on public and private property, including downed trees and limbs that posed threats to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Richmond. FEMA prepared 26 PWs for a total of $7,035,940 to fund eligible debris removal work. Specifically, PW 60 included funding for the removal of eligible hazardous stumps. FEMA denied $181,421 in funding associated with contract costs for the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches and less in diameter that were paid on a per-stump unit-cost basis. FEMA reimbursed the Applicant for the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches and less in diameter on an equivalent cubic-yard basis, using stump conversion factors.
On May 7, 2007, the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) submitted a first appeal on behalf of the Applicant. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal on July 27, 2007, because the Applicants contract pricing structure for the removal of hazardous stump removal measuring 24 inches and less was not consistent with FEMA policy and costs were not reasonable. The Regional Administrator asserted that it was FEMAs historical practice and policy since 1999 that stumps measuring less than 24 inches in diameter would be treated as burnable debris and paid on a cubic-yard basis.
VDEM forwarded the Applicants second appeal to FEMA on December 20, 2007. The Applicants second appeal makes the following arguments: (1) the contract was properly procured and therefore contract costs established are reasonable, including payment for the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches as less on a per-stump basis, and (2) the Applicant acted with the consent of FEMA staff that provided misinformation about FEMA policies.
FEMA agrees that the Applicants contract was properly procured in accordance with 44 CFR Part 13. However, the contract includes cost items that are not consistent with FEMA policy regarding stump removal payment that was in place at the time of the disaster. FEMAs historical practice and policypublished in the 1999 edition of the FEMA 325 Debris Management Guideis to reimburse the removal of stumps measuring 24 inches and less on a cubic-yard basis. Stumps measuring 24 inches in diameter and less do not require special equipment for removal and, therefore, are reimbursed on the basis of reasonable cost per cubic yard, using stump conversion factors. The stump conversion factors that the Regional Administrator used are applicable, comprehensive, and provide a reasonable estimate of the volume of debris from a given tree stump.
Also, despite the Applicants assertion that FEMA staff provided misinformation about FEMA policies, rules, and regulations, the Applicant does not provide any documentation to support this in its appeal. Ultimately, it is the Applicants responsibility to follow all applicable local, State, and Federal laws, regulations, and policies that are available to the public on the internet and through other sources in the public domain.
Based on all information submitted with the appeal and the reasons stated above, I have determined that the Regional Administrators decision on the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance Program regulations and policies. Therefore, the Applicants second appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Jonathan Sarubbi
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region III