SRIA Presentation

Report
The Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act at 1 Year Old
Evan Rosenberg, J.D.
Recovery Chief, FDEM
Donald Kunish, C.E.M.
Client Service Mgr., Leidos
Prepared for FEPA Annual Meeting
February, 2014
What was SRIA?
• As a general reminder, the Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act was enacted in 2013 with
the goals of:
– Reducing the costs to the Federal government of
providing (Recovery) assistance, and:
• Increasing flexibility in the provision of assistance,
• Expediting the provision of assistance, and
• Providing financial incentives and disincentives for the
timely and cost-effective completion of projects with
assistance
SRIA Generally
• The main provisions of SRIA were:
– Payment of PA claims based on fixed estimates
– Cost-recovery for regular-time emergency PA work
(Cat A & B)
– Incentivizing debris management planning
– Incentivizing speedy debris management work
– Small changes made to IA & HMGP programs
Pilot Programs vs. Permanent Changes
• FEMA was given authority to implement some
changes permanently, and others as pilot
programs:
SRIA Program
Pilot or Permanent?
End Date
PA Alternative Procedures
Pilot
No Fixed
End Date
Debris Management
Alternative Procedures
Pilot
June 27, 2014
Cost Recovery of RT
Emergency Work Salaries
Permanent
n/a
Use of SRIA Provisions
• Although there were retroactive provisions in
SRIA, most of the SRIA changes came too late
for use in the Superstorm Sandy Recovery!
– PA Alternative Procedures have been scarcely
used to date
– Debris Management is being widely implemented,
but has not been widely used to date
Use of PA Alternative Procedures
• PA Alternative Procedures have not been used
in Region IV to date
– PA Alternative Procedures were implemented in
OK, during recovery from the Moore Tornado
event (DR-4117) in May of 2013
• Rationale of the subgrantees was typically one of ‘the
town is completely destroyed, let’s get the money as
soon as possible!’
• Very few of the intricacies have been tested to date,
other than the fixed nature of the grants
Use of PA Alternative Procedures in OK
• Comments provided by the OK Office of
Emergency Management include:
– Paperwork to implement alternative procedures
includes a signed statement of the choice,
– No rumblings of large underruns (yet!),
– They do anticipate some use of the alternative
arbitration process in lieu of second appeal (tbd),
Use of PA Alternative Procedures in FL
• We did have one disaster declared after SRIA
was enacted (DR-4138, N. FL Severe Storms),
but to date no subgrantees have used PA
Alternative Procedures
– Rationale most commonly heard is ‘we like the
idea, but we want to see it used somewhere else
first.’
Potential Issue with Alternative
Procedures in FL
• One commentator has opined that the
payment of large projects based on fixed
estimates should be treated as an “advance”
under Florida Law
– The Division will seek additional legal opinion on
this, and may attempt to address through
rulemaking or statutory changes
Potential Changes to IA
• As part of SRIA, Congress instructed FEMA to
look at the threshold issue for declaring an IA
Major Disaster
– As of right now there is no “official” threshold
codified in law or policy. The unofficial threshold is
100 homes with “major damage” or “destroyed”
status, in at least one county.
Potential Changes to IA (ctd.)
• In mid-2013 FEMA convened a working group
and solicited comments from the states, on
establishing different thresholds based on
state population
– There would be 3 categories: large (>10 million),
medium and small (<2 million) population states
under the proposal
• The Division argued against this model, arguing instead
for a model based on population density of the
impacted county
Use of Debris Management
Alternative Procedures
• This is where most of the Post-SRIA action has
been!
– Debris Planning Component
• Unaware whether anyone has utilized the “bonus” 2%
for having a FEMA-reviewed debris management plan
– Speedy Debris Work Component
• This has been used a number of times across the
nation, with very few negative comments resulting
– A few subgrantees have complained that a lack
FEMA monitors/personnel has caused them to miss
important dates
of
Use of Debris Management
Alternative Procedures in FL
• To date we have not used these in FL either
– No subgrantees chose to use the “one-time-only”
2% bonus federal cost share in DR-4138
– Likewise, DR-4138 was not a major debrisgenerating event, so the speed “bonus” was not
utilized
Debris Planning in FL
• That being said, Florida subgrantees are
preparing debris management plans, should
the 2% bonus become meaningful:
– 26 Counties have submitted plans to the state:
• 19 have been sent on to FEMA
• 7 returned to Counties for additional information
– Of the 19 sent on to FEMA:
• 9 have been approved by FEMA
• 3 have been returned for rework
• 7 pending FEMA determination
In-Depth Discussion on Debris
Reimbursement Options
Comparison of Debris
Reimbursement Options
• Advantages and
disadvantages to using
both program
procedures based on
the following:
16
– Type of disaster
– Type and quantity of
debris
– Special programs
– Environmental
considerations
– Timeline
Comparison of
Debris
Reimbursement
Options (ctd.)
Choose wisely…
Comparison of Debris
Reimbursement Options (ctd.)
• Project Comparison:
– Sioux Falls, South Dakota Ice Storm
•
•
•
Short-term debris removal project
Vegetative debris
Quick project completion
– Bastrop, Texas Wildfires
•
•
•
18
Long-term debris removal program
Environmental concerns
Special programs
Comparison of Debris
Reimbursement Options (ctd.)
• Sioux
Falls, South Dakota
Ice Storm
– Occurred in April 2013
– Combination of ice and
wind caused trees to
crack and fall
– Hazardous hanging and
leaning limbs
19
Comparison of Debris
Reimbursement Options (ctd.)
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Ice Storm
Sliding Scale Option
Timeline
Eligible Work
Federal Share
Local Share
Day 1 to 30
Cost Share: 85%/15%
$863,487.88
$733,964.70
$129,523.18
Day 31 to 90
Cost Share: 80%/20%
$125,653.55
$106,805.52
$18,848.03
Day 91 to 180
Cost Share: 75%/25%
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Day 180+
Cost Share: 0%/100%
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$989,141.44
$840,770.22
$148,371.22
TOTAL
20
Comparison of Debris
Reimbursement Options (ctd.)
Sioux Falls, South Dakota Ice Storm
Standard Debris Option
Eligible Work
Federal Share
Local Share
$989,141.44
$741,856.08
$247,285.36
Comparison
Program
Federal Share
Local Share
Sliding Scale Option
$840,770.22
$148,371.22
Standard Debris Option
$741,856.08
$247,285.36
Difference of $98,914.14 federal cost share
21
Comparison of Debris
Reimbursement Options (ctd.)
• Bastrop, Texas Wildfires
– Fire started September 4, 2011
– Tropical Storm Lee caused 30 mph winds
– Most destructive wildfire in Texas history
– 34,000 acres burned
– 1,667 homes destroyed
– 38 non-residential structures destroyed
– 5,000 people displaced
– 2 fatalities
– 1.5 million trees killed
22
Comparison of Debris
Reimbursement Options (ctd.)
Bastrop, Texas Wildfires
Sliding Scale Option
Timeline
Eligible Work
Federal Share
Local Share
Day 1 to 30
Cost Share: 85%/15%
$1,502,881.87
$1,277,449.59
$225,432.28
Day 31 to 90
Cost Share: 80%/20%
$3,230,326.73
$2,584,261.38
$646,065.35
Day 91 to 180
Cost Share: 75%/25%
$3,217,615.04
$2,574,092.03
$643,523.01
Day 180+
Cost Share: 0%/100%
$9,732,477.24
$0.00
$9,732,477.24
TOTAL
$17,683,300.88
$6,435,803.00
$11,247,497.88
23
Comparison of Debris
Reimbursement Options (ctd.)
Bastrop, Texas Wildfires
Standard Debris Option
Eligible Work
Federal Share
Local Share
$17,683,300.88
$13,262,475.66
$4,420,825.22
Comparison
Program
Federal Share
Local Share
Sliding Scale Option
$6,435,803.00
$11,247,497.88
Standard Debris Option
$13,262,475.66
$4,420,825.22
Difference of $6,826,672.66 local cost share
24
Comparison of Debris
Reimbursement Options (ctd.)
•
Sliding Scale Option:
–
Pros:
•
–
25
•
Recycling Revenue Option:
–
Possible lower cost share
Pros:
•
Possible increased funding for
disaster programs with
Recycling revenue
•
Innovative recycling methods
that are more expensive are
eligible
Cons:
•
Cleanup cut off date
•
Must identify when debris
actually reaches final disposal
•
Ensuring contractor urgency
with final disposal
–
Cons:
•
Current contracts might not
account for recycling revenues
•
Contractors consider revenues
in unit pricing
•
Contracts may utilize cradle to
grave pricing
•
Local may have given up
ownership of debris

similar documents