U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.

Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.

The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Strong City, KS - Acquisitions

Appeal Brief

ApplicantKansas Division of Emergency Management
Appeal Type2nd
Project Number1
Date Signed
1st Appeal• Issueo The Subapplicant, Strong City, Kansas, submitted an HMGP application through Kansas Division of Emergency Management for funds to acquire residential structures. Funding through the Federal Individual and Family Grant Program had been awarded for the property at XXX Elm Street; and the acquisition of a mobile home located at XXX South Elm Street was determined to not be eligible. The project was not approved by Region VII, and a 1st level appeal was denied by Region VII.• Reason for Denialo The Duplication of Benefits (DOB) amount from previous advanced funding was not deducted from the purchase price of XXX Elm Street during the property closing transaction, and the resulting duplicated Federal funding was found to be ineligible for reimbursement.o Region VII determined that the acquisition of a mobile home at XXX South Elm Street was ineligible for reimbursement, because the proposed acquisition did not include the land with the structure. The State requested reimbursement for costs to elevate the mobile home in lieu of the costs found ineligible for acquisition. The request for cost reimbursement associated with elevation was denied, because the costs were not part of the approved scope of work (SOW).• Reference(s)o 44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility;   44 CFR 206.440 Appeals2nd Appeal• Issueo The Applicant argued that the acquisitions were eligible under the HMGP regulations, and requested the 1st appeal denial by Region VII to be overturned, and the reimbursements to be granted.• FEMA Findingso The 2nd appeal decision upheld the 1st appeal, denying reimbursement of ineligible costs associated with acquisition of the two structures.o The rationale for the decision was that the costs for acquisition for XXX Elm Street and XXX South Elm Street were ineligible, respectively, based on DOB, and costs outside of the approved SOW. In addition, the 2nd level appeal did not contain new or substantive information providing grounds for overturning the 1st level appeal denial.o Reference(s):  44 CFR 206.434 HMGP Eligibility;   44 CFR 206.440 Appeals

Appeal Letter

William M. ChornyakDeputy DirectorKansas Division of Emergency Management2800 Southwest Topeka BoulevardTopeka, Kansas  66611-1287   Dear Mr. Krase:   I am writing in response to your request dated February 13, 2006 for FEMA to review the second level appeal for the City of Strong City, Kansas.  This second appeal follows the decision by the FEMA Region VII Office in Kansas City to disallow costs claimed for the city’s acquisition project submitted under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).   FEMA Headquarters personnel have thoroughly reviewed the information submitted with this second level appeal.  After careful consideration I have concluded that the original determination by Region VII to disallow costs claimed under this project should stand.  The second level appeal does not contain new or substantive information that would provide grounds for overturning the decision made at the Region.   The Regional Office found the following costs to be ineligible:   XXX Elm StreetAfter evaluation of the documentation the Region concluded that no receipts were provided to demonstrate that the Individual and Family Grant Program (IFG) funds were spent for their intended purpose and the Duplication of Benefits (or advance) amount was not deducted from the purchase price during the property closing transaction.  Therefore, the resulting duplication of $7,445 in advanced funds was found to be ineligible for reimbursement.   XXX S. Elm StreetBased on FEMA and State policy the Region determined that costs in the amount of $7,677 for the acquisition of a mobile home without the inclusion of the land was ineligible for reimbursement.  The State’s first level appeal requested reimbursement for costs incurred by the land owner in the amount of $7,000 to elevate a newly placed mobile home in lieu of the costs that were found ineligible for the acquisition of the mobile home.  The State requested reimbursement of costs that were not part of the approved scope of work.  Therefore, the request for reimbursement for costs associated with the mobile home elevation was denied.  In conclusion, after review of the second level appeal documentation, FEMA Headquarters concurs with the determination by the Region to disallow reimbursement for costs as requested by the City of Strong City, Kansas.   If you have any additional questions regarding this issue, please contact Kathy Strange, Chief, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Branch, Region VII, at (816) 283-7033.           Sincerely,          David I. Maurstad       Assistant Administrator       Mitigation Directorate   cc:  Richard Hainje, Regional Adminstrator, FEMA Region VII       Robert G. Bissell, Director, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division, FEMA Region VII

 

Appeal Analysis

Funding through the Federal Individual and Family Grant Program had been awarded for the property at XXX Elm Street; and the acquisition of a mobile home located at XXX South Elm Street was determined to not be eligible.   The Duplication of Benefits (DOB) amount from previous advanced funding was not deducted from the purchase price of XXX Elm Street during the property closing transaction, and the resulting duplicated Federal funding was found to be ineligible for reimbursement.   The acquisition of a mobile home at XXX South Elm Street was found ineligible for reimbursement, because the proposed acquisition did not include the land with the structure. Reimbursement for costs to elevate the mobile home in lieu of the costs found ineligible for acquisition were denied, because the costs were not part of the approved scope of work (SOW).

 

Last updated Aug 19, 2014

Would you like to take a brief survey regarding your experience with fema.gov?