Citation: FEMA-1539-DR-FL, J.U.T.E., Inc., Time Extension, Project Worksheet (PW) 7180
Reference: Time Extension
Summary: As a result of Hurricane Charlie, the Applicant’s residential facility, located at 1701 Brisson Drive, sustained severe damage that compromised the facility’s structural integrity. FEMA obligated PW 6759 in the amount of $177,295 for the Applicant contractors to document damages and to estimate the cost to repair the damaged facility. FEMA de-obligated PW 6759 and simultaneously wrote PW 7180 v0 to capture the damages and associated costs to rebuild the damaged facility at the Brisson Drive location. PW 7180 was subsequently adjusted to add previously deducted insurance proceeds and in January 2007, PW 7180 v1 was obligated in the amount of $403,896. At this time the Applicant withdrew $150,914 from the State, while foreclosure proceedings were taking place on the Brisson Drive location.
In October 2008, the State forwarded to FEMA the Applicant’s request for a change in the scope of work indicating that the damaged facility had been foreclosed upon and that the Applicant proposed to relocate its residential program to 903 S. Scott Avenue. The Applicant advised the State that it needed additional funding in the amount of $45,103 to complete the S. Scott Avenue project. On November 23, 2009, the State submitted to FEMA the Applicant’s request for a time extension explaining that project progress was delayed due to a review by the Office of Inspector General. In a letter dated March 1, 2010, FEMA denied the extension request because the damaged facility had been foreclosed and was now bank owned. PW 7180 v2 was prepared to deobligate funds totaling $403,896.
The Applicant submitted a first appeal on April 29, 2010. The Applicant stated that the property foreclosure was caused by the length of time it took to receive Public Assistance funding. It further stated that it relocated its program to S. Scott Avenue because the property was owned by the program’s executive director and there were no funds available to purchase another property.
The Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the damaged facility was not subject to repetitive damages, requesting reimbursement of repairs from obligated funds was within the Applicant’s control and did not constitute extenuating circumstances beyond the Applicant’s control, and the damaged facility was no longer the legal responsibility of the Applicant.
Issue: Did the Applicant demonstrate extenuating circumstances to warrant a time extension?
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.204 (d)(2), Project Performance; 44CFR §206.226(g)(1)(ii),Restoration of damaged facilities, Relocation