Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 037-99037-00; Los Angeles County
PW ID# Project Worksheet 702; Day Creek Channel
FEMA-1498-DR-CA, Los Angeles County, PW 702
Net Small Project Overrun, Duplication of Benefits
As a result of wildfires that occurred during the period of October 21, 2003, through March 31, 2004, Los Angeles County (Applicant) requested funding to demolish chimneys and related structures of 22 residences in Palmer Canyon because the structures presented an eminent threat to the health and safety of the general public. The Applicant also requested funds for project management costs to oversee demolition work and to obtain clearances, insurance information, and other documents from the 22 homeowners whose residences were identified for demolition. The PW scope of work did not include a provision for debris removal from private property and it did not include an estimate for project management costs. FEMA determined that the Applicant would recover the costs of the demolition work from the property owners’ homeowner insurance. Therefore, FEMA obligated PW 702 in the amount of $1,045 to cover demolition costs of uninsured properties.
The Applicant submitted an appeal on June 8, 2004, requesting to increase the PW’s demolition cost estimate and submitted an estimate for project management costs. FEMA does not review small project cost overruns on a project-by-project basis and denied the appeal; however, the Applicant was advised to appeal, if necessary, for a NSPO at the completion of all the Applicant’s small projects. On November 10, 2004, the Applicant submitted an NSPO appeal for $25,215 under PW 1248, which reflects the total cost overrun for PW 702. The Acting Regional Director approved the NSPO request on July 18, 2005, but reversed the decision on March 27, 2007, following a quality control review of the appeal support documents, which included invoices for debris removal.
On July 2, 2007, the Applicant filed its second appeal stating that FEMA erred in associating costs claimed in the NSPO for PW 702 with ineligible debris removal costs in another PW. The second appeal did not include sufficient documentation to support the Applicant’s position. In accordance with 44 CFR §206.204 (e)(2), “All requests for the RD’s approval will contain sufficient documentation to support the eligibility of all claimed work and costs.
” Therefore, the appeal should be denied.
1. Did the Applicant provide sufficient support documents?
1. No. The documentation does not support reimbursement because it does not include a detailed cost breakdown of the work.
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Section 312(a); 44 CFR §206.204 (e)(2)