Disposal of Storm Related Debris in Las Positas Park

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1044-DR
ApplicantCity of Santa Barbara
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#083-69070
PW ID#98428
Date Signed1997-09-11T04:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; City of Santa Barbara; DSR 98428

Cross-Reference: Emergency Work, Debris Removal

Summary: As a result of the winter storms of 1995, the City of Santa Barbara had to dispose of large amounts of storm-generated debris. The three county landfills allegedly would not accept the storm debris for disposal. As an alternative, the subgrantee used Las Positas Friendship Park to disposal of the debris. Park officials required that the trash be separated from the debris and that the remaining mud be compacted and covered by vegetation to match the existing environment of the park. DSR 98428 was written for $68,884 to pay for the processing costs to sort and place the debris. Upon review, the DSR was reduced to $24,156 to cover only the eligible construction costs. A further review determined all of the funding to be ineligible as the disposal of all storm-generated debris was covered in other DSRs. The subgrantee submitted their first appeal on the assertion that presence of the debris posed an immediate threat. Furthermore, as Las Positas Park was one of the designated sites for debris removal, the additional cost involved with using the park would automatically be eligible. The Regional Director denied the appeal because other DSRs covered the cost of debris removal and the subgrantee had voluntarily selected to use the park for debris disposal rather than use the county landfills. The subgrantee has submitted a second appeal based on its contention that the county landfills would not accept the storm debris and documentation supporting its position.

Issues: Were the county landfills not accepting the storm debris for disposal? Can the extra costs incurred by disposing of the debris in the park be justified?

Findings: Yes. The subgrantee provided documentation to support its contention that the county landfills would not accept the storm debris in the form of letters from officials at the sites. The subgrantee selected Las Positas Park as an alternative disposal site because of the minimal dump fees. The volume of debris generated could have generated over three million dollars in tipping at the county landfills. Alternatively, the subgrantee incurred only $24,156 in cost to sort and place the debris at the park. Park officials required the sorting of the trash from the debris as the debris was placed in areas accessible to the public and the trash could cause hazards. This review has determined that the sorting of the debris was a reasonable requirement as it prevented potential threats to the public. Furthermore, the cost of sorting and placing of the debris was reasonable when compared to the possible tipping fees. Therefore, the costs incurred by the subgrantee to sort and place the debris at the park will be funded.

Rationale: Pursuant to 44CFR 206.206(a), documentation must be provided to justify requested funding under the Public Assistance Program. Funding must be for reasonable actions taken by the subgrantee in performing disaster related functions.

Appeal Letter

September 11, 1997

Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, 3rd Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678

Dear Mr. Najera:

This letter is in response to your January 14, 1997, submittal of the City of Santa Barbara's second appeal of damage survey report 98428 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA. The subgrantee requested that the cost ($24,156) incurred by sorting and placing storm-generated debris in Las Positas Park be funded.

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the cost associated with sorting and placing debris at Las Positas Park is eligible for FEMA funding. The basis for this determination is contained in the enclosed appeal analysis. I have asked the Regional Director to take appropriate action to implement this determination. Please inform the applicant of my determination.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
As a result of the winter storms of 1995, the City of Santa Barbara disposed of large amounts of storm-generated debris. The subgrantee claimed that restrictions placed by the County would not allow the three area landfills to be used for disposal of storm debris. As an alternative, the subgrantee used Las Positas Friendship Park for permanent disposal of the debris. Due to the mixture of the mud and trash, park officials would not allow the debris to be disposed of until the trash was first separated from the mud. Reportedly, the park officials also required the mud be covered with vegetation to match the existing environment of the park.

Damage survey report (DSR) 98428 was written on November 13, 1995, for $68,884 to pay for processing costs to place the storm debris in Las Positas Park. DSR 98428 was reviewed and the funding was reduced to $24,156 to cover only the eligible construction costs. Upon further review, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) determined that funding for removal and disposal of all storm-generated debris was covered in other DSRs. The reviewers also determined that the subgrantee had elected to use Las Positas Park for debris disposal as an alternative to the county landfills. Therefore, FEMA concluded that processing costs for placing the storm debris in the park were ineligible for funding.

First Appeal
With a July 5, 1996, letter, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (State) transmitted the subgrantee's April 17, 1996, first appeal. In its appeal letter, the subgrantee contended that DSR 98428 was eligible for funding because the presence of the debris posed an immediate threat and required swift removal. Furthermore, as Las Positas Park was one of three sites designated for debris removal, the additional costs incurred by the subgrantee in using this site would, therefore, automatically be eligible for funding.

The Regional Director denied the first appeal in a September 9, 1996, letter, stating that normal costs for removal and disposal of the storm-related debris were covered in other DSRs. The Regional Director agreed with the reviewer that the subgrantee had voluntarily selected to use the park location for permanent disposal of debris rather than use one of the county landfills.

Second Appeal
The subgrantee submitted a second appeal on November 6, 1996, which stated that it did not voluntarily select the park as a disposal site. Rather, it contended that restrictions placed by the County prevented them from using the three area landfills for the disposal of storm-generated debris. The subgrantee alleged that the landfills were unable to receive soil material, which comprised a large portion of the debris, and that the County considered the storm debris "too wet" for the facilities. The State transmitted the subgrantee's appeal to the Executive Associate Director through the Regional Director in a letter dated January 14, 1997.

DISCUSSION
The subgrantee contended that it was restricted from using the three county landfills to dispose of storm debris. At the request of FEMA, the subgrantee provided documentation to support its contention. The documentation consisted of letters from the directors of two landfill sites, who stated that storm debris was not being accepted at either facility. The subgrantee further stated that the third landfill site was not considered because of the potential environmental impact of depositing the debris at that site.

As the county landfills would not accept the storm debris, the subgrantee was forced to select an alternative permanent disposal site. The subgrantee asserted that Las Positas Park was the most appropriate selection because of the minimal dump fees and its close proximity reduced haulage time and costs. The total volume of storm-generated debris disposed exceeded 50,000 cubic yards. Park officials required the subgrantee to sort the trash from the debris before the clean debris could be permanently placed as the debris was placed in areas accessible by the general public and the trash could cause hazards. This review has determined that the sorting of the debris was a reasonable requirement as it prevented potential threats to the public. Furthermore, the cost of sorting and placing the debris was reasonable when compared to the possible tipping fees. Therefore, the extra costs incurred by the subgrantee to dispose of the debris at the park will be funded.

CONCLUSION:
Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(a), the subgrantee provided documentation to support its contention that the county landfills would not accept the storm debris. Our review determined that the subgrantee selected Las Positas Park as the permanent disposal site because of the minimal dump fees and its close proximity reduced haulage time and costs. The extra costs incurred by the subgrantee in disposing of the debris in Las Positas Friendship Park were only a small fraction of what the tipping fees at the county landfills could have been. Also, the processing costs were due to restrictions placed by the park officials, which were found to be reasonable to prevent future public injury. Therefore, the additional costs borne by the subgrantee for disposing of the storm debris in the Las Positas Friendship Park are reasonable and eligible for funding. Accordingly, the subgrantee's appeal is approved.
Last updated