Denial of Additional Cost

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1773-DR
Applicant	City of Clarksville - 2nd
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	163-14194-00
PW ID#	NA
Date Signed	2010-05-27T04:00:00

SECOND APPEAL BRIEF

FEMA-1773-DR-MO

City of Clarksville, PA ID 163-14194-00

Additional Costs

Citation: FEMA1773-DR-CA, City of Clarksville, Additional Costs

Cross-

Reference: Documentation, Time Limitation

Summary:

From June 1, 2008 through June 18, 2008, severe storms flooded the City of Clarksville. FEMA held the Applicant’s kickoff meeting on July 22, 2008. On December 11, 2008, the Applicant submitted additional costs to the state that included invoices from the Clarksville Special Road District, the Pike County fire department as well as invoices that covered office supplies, a fuel tank purchase, tire repair, backhoe servicing, copier service calls and phone bills. The State found the Applicant’s costs ineligible on January 28, 2009, for two reasons: 1) the Applicant did not identify the damages/costs associated with the disaster within 60 days of the kickoff meeting and, 2) some of the costs would not have been eligible for Public Assistance funding even if the Applicant submitted the costs in a timely manner. On October 6, 2009, the Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the Applicant did not provide the documentation in the proper format for the Regional Administrator to evaluate if the costs were related to disaster damage. The Regional Administrator also found that the Applicant did not submit the appeal within the established deadline. The State did submit the first appeal within the established deadline.

The Applicant submitted the second appeal on December 21, 2009. The State does not support the appeal. The Applicant provided a list of costs with a short explanation of each.

Issues:

1) Did the Applicants submit its documentation within the established deadline?

2) Did the Applicant document the eligible scope of work and provide sufficient justification for the additional costs?

Findings:

1) No.

2) No.

Rationale: 44 CFR §206.202 (d) Application Procedures

Appeal Letter

May 27, 2010

Paul Parmenter

Director

State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency

P. O. Box 116

Jefferson City, Missouri 65102

Re: Second Appeal-City of Clarksville, PA ID 163-14194-00, Denial of Additional Cost,

FEMA-1773-DR-MO

Dear Mr. Parmenter:

This letter is in response to your letter dated December 30, 2009, transmitting the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Clarksville (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) decision to deny its request for reimbursement of various miscellaneous costs following the disaster.

Background

From June 1, 2008 through July 18, 2008, severe storms flooded the City of Clarksville. FEMA held the Applicant’s kickoff meeting on July 22, 2008. On December 11, 2008, the Applicant submitted 28 contractor and purchase invoices to the State of Missouri Emergency Management Agency (SEMA) requesting that either the State or FEMA review them and determine what was eligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance Program. The costs included invoices from the Clarksville Special Road District, the Pike County fire department as well as invoices that covered office supplies, a fuel tank purchase, tire repair, backhoe servicing, copier service calls and phone bills. In a letter dated January 28, 2009, SEMA informed the Applicant that its submitted costs were ineligible because the Applicant did not identify the eligible damages or costs associated with the disaster within 60 days of the kickoff meeting. SEMA also found that some of the costs would not have been eligible for Public Assistance funding even if the Applicant submitted the costs in a timely manner. The Acting Regional Administrator sustained this determination on first appeal in a letter dated October 6, 2009.

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on December 21, 2009, and included a list of its submitted costs with a short explanation of each. SEMA does not support the Applicant’s appeal.

Discussion

FEMA’s regulations at 44 CFR §206.202 (d)(1)(ii), Application Procedures, Project Worksheets requires applicants to identify and report damages to FEMA within 60 days of the kickoff meeting. The Applicant submitted the cost information more than four months after the kickoff meeting. In addition, the Applicant provided copies of invoices but did not document how the costs were related to the performance of eligible work.

Conclusion

Based on the review of the information submitted with the appeal, I have determined that the Acting Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy. Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal

Please inform the Applicant of my determination. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Recovery Directorate

cc: Beth Freeman

Regional Administrator

FEMA Region VII

返回顶部