Road Surfacing Repairs
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; Yolo County Flood Control & Water District; DSR's 75077 & 37869.
Cross-Reference: Roadway grading, Emergency work, Permanent repair, Eligible costs.
Summary: During the winter storms of 1995, heavy runoff from surrounding hillsides damaged approximately 1,050 linear feet of a stream gauge access road and adjacent drainage ditches located near Indian Valley Dam. The original DSR (75077) covered all damages necessary to restore the site to pre-disaster condition. During the review process, FEMA reduced the total amount of eligible reimbursement detailed on that DSR, stating that some of the repair costs had been duplicated. FEMA also felt that inappropriate cost codes were used in detailing repair estimates. The modifications to DSR 75077 were presented on supplemental DSR 37869, where the Grading cost code was changed to Blading (3063). The applicant was requesting reimbursement for grading of sub-grade, but was only allowed blading costs. The first appeal was denied due to the fact that some of the repair cost line items on the DSR were duplicated.
After review of the original and supplemental DSRs, it has been determined that the applicant did not claim duplicated costs. Some of the repair costs were for work done to temporarily restore the function of the roadway until permanent repairs could be completed, and thus, did not constitute permanent work.
Issues:
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1044-DR |
| Applicant | Yolo County Flood Control & Water District |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 113-91001 |
| PW ID# | 75077,37869 |
| Date Signed | 1998-04-10T04:00:00 |
Cross-Reference: Roadway grading, Emergency work, Permanent repair, Eligible costs.
Summary: During the winter storms of 1995, heavy runoff from surrounding hillsides damaged approximately 1,050 linear feet of a stream gauge access road and adjacent drainage ditches located near Indian Valley Dam. The original DSR (75077) covered all damages necessary to restore the site to pre-disaster condition. During the review process, FEMA reduced the total amount of eligible reimbursement detailed on that DSR, stating that some of the repair costs had been duplicated. FEMA also felt that inappropriate cost codes were used in detailing repair estimates. The modifications to DSR 75077 were presented on supplemental DSR 37869, where the Grading cost code was changed to Blading (3063). The applicant was requesting reimbursement for grading of sub-grade, but was only allowed blading costs. The first appeal was denied due to the fact that some of the repair cost line items on the DSR were duplicated.
After review of the original and supplemental DSRs, it has been determined that the applicant did not claim duplicated costs. Some of the repair costs were for work done to temporarily restore the function of the roadway until permanent repairs could be completed, and thus, did not constitute permanent work.
Issues:
- Were some of the estimated repair costs duplicated on the original DSR?
- Should a Blading cost code be used instead of a Grading cost code?
- No. The work in question was actually emergency work, and was necessary to reestablish traffic flow until permanent repairs could be made.
- No. Based on the extent of damages, the original Grading cost code is applicable to this situation.
Appeal Letter
April 10, 1998
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Assistance Program Branch
Public Assistance Section
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823-9013
Dear Mr. Christian:
This letter is in response to your October 21, 1997, transmittal of the Yolo County Flood Control & Water District's second appeal of Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 75077 & 37869 under FEMA 1044-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting additional funding for repairs to damages incurred during the declared event.
After reviewing the subgrantee's explanation of road repair methods and procedures, it has been determined that repair costs on the original DSR were not duplicated, but rather represented emergency work followed by permanent work on the same facility. Also, based on the information provided, it has been determined that the work necessary to restore the roadway to predisaster condition does require "grading" (subgrade shaping) and is eligible for FEMA funding. Therefore, the appeal is approved.
By copy of this letter, I am asking the Regional Director to take appropriate action to implement this determination. Please inform the Yolo County Flood Control & Water District of my decision on this appeal.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Disaster Assistance Program Branch
Public Assistance Section
Post Office Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823-9013
Dear Mr. Christian:
This letter is in response to your October 21, 1997, transmittal of the Yolo County Flood Control & Water District's second appeal of Damage Survey Reports (DSRs) 75077 & 37869 under FEMA 1044-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting additional funding for repairs to damages incurred during the declared event.
After reviewing the subgrantee's explanation of road repair methods and procedures, it has been determined that repair costs on the original DSR were not duplicated, but rather represented emergency work followed by permanent work on the same facility. Also, based on the information provided, it has been determined that the work necessary to restore the roadway to predisaster condition does require "grading" (subgrade shaping) and is eligible for FEMA funding. Therefore, the appeal is approved.
By copy of this letter, I am asking the Regional Director to take appropriate action to implement this determination. Please inform the Yolo County Flood Control & Water District of my decision on this appeal.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Enclosure
cc: Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Last updated