Laserfiche WebLink
U.S.Department of Homeland Security <br /> Washington.DC 20528 <br /> Homeland <br /> N.4 0, .: Security <br /> June 8.2015 <br /> Ernest B. Abbott, Esq. <br /> Baker Donelson <br /> 920 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. <br /> Suite 900 <br /> Washington, D.C. 20001 <br /> Re: Indian River County Project Worksheet(PW) 6495, FEMA-1561-DR-FL, PA ID 061- <br /> 99061-00 <br /> Dear Mr. Abbott: <br /> I am in receipt of your December 31, 2014 letter which requests the Assistant Administrator for <br /> Recovery reconsider the Second Appeal Decision de-obligating$2,827,524 for Indian River County's <br /> Rockridge Sewer Mitigation Project(FEMA-1561-DR-FL, PW 6495) (the Project)in light of the <br /> United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida decision in South Florida Water <br /> Management District v. FEMA (SFWMD). I reviewed the facts of this matter and discussed your <br /> request with the Assistant Administrator. <br /> Pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, FEMA's Public Assistance Second Appeal determinations represent <br /> the agency's final administrative decision on eligibility issues appealed by applicants. FEMA only <br /> reconsiders its final administrative decisions in exceptional situations, such as when a new material <br /> fact arises after FEMA makes its final decision and justice requires its consideration. In this instance, <br /> the relevant new material fact is the September 2014 SFWMD decision issued after FEMA's Second <br /> Appeal Decision on the Project. Although FEMA does not agree with the District Court's decision in <br /> SFWMD and maintains its interpretation of Section 705(c)of the Stafford Act as presented in the <br /> SFWMD case is legally valid, FEMA recognizes the applicability of the Court's holding in the <br /> Southern District of Florida. <br /> Here the Project occurred in Indian River County, which is located in the Southern District of <br /> Florida, making the SFWMD decision material to FEMA's analysis. Further, the Project's Second <br /> Appeal was pending while the SFWMD case was in litigation. As a result of the project's location, <br /> timing of the Applicant's Second Appeal, applicability of the SFWMD decision,and interest in <br /> avoiding further litigation, the Assistant Administrator for Recovery finds that the unique <br /> 89 <br />