1 / 32

FEPA Annual Meeting 2013

Scott L. Nelson Emergency Management, Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office. FEPA Annual Meeting 2013. We received 30 plus inches of rain countywide Weak tropical storm force winds were recorded along the coast; inland wind fields were below TS force. Minor storm tides of 6’ were measured.

kineks
Télécharger la présentation

FEPA Annual Meeting 2013

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Scott L. Nelson Emergency Management, Wakulla County Sheriff’s Office FEPA Annual Meeting 2013

  2. We received 30 plus inches of rain countywide Weak tropical storm force winds were recorded along the coast; inland wind fields were below TS force. Minor storm tides of 6’ were measured Event Characteristics

  3. Record Flooding along the Sopchoppy River Major road flooding to include the total isolation of the City of Sopchoppy Major Flooding to homes Major road damage Major impacts to the wastewater treatment system Minor vegetative debris, household C&D Numerous sinkholes on public and private property Ponding Vector Control Impacts

  4. From the good to the ugly • The GOOD • FDEM • Smooth coordination the willingness to support the locals • Private contractor DSI • Extremely knowledgeable staff and a willingness to go to battle • The Ugly • FEMA • PWs not provided for review before submittal • Inconsistent guidance to FEMA and local staff • Decisions contrary to policy/guidance • Lack of urgency • Staffing inconstancies • Eligibility determinations made in the field • Lack of communication/leadership • More concerned with image than outcome

  5. The Ugly Continued • FEMA stance that sites with less than $1000.00 could not be grouped • FEMA stance that private contract labor was not eligible CAT C and F • FEMA stance that if you performed CAT B work the project would not be eligible for CAT C • Reservist program

  6. The Good • FDEM • Supportive of the needs of the locals • They had to be nudged at times but were effective in nudging FEMA • Private Contractor • They had the ability to hire experienced staff • Many had worked for FEMA in the past • Had more knowledge of FEMA policies than the FEMA representation • Allowed for a successful outcome

  7. The Ugly FEMA PW review process • PWs only available for review after submission • PWs were written in a vacuum with no local verification/input • On August 17, Wakulla County requested to have the State Contractor write small projects. The FEMA FCO and State Director pleaded with the county to stay the course for continuity • Eventually the majority of the PWs were re-written by the State Contractor (all were approved)

  8. The Ugly : inconstant guidance to staff • FEMA project specialist and local staff complained about continuing changes in guidance and data needed • Two project specialists left the event before completing a PW • Staff would be given guidance to provide information and spend hours of sorting and preparation only to be told “they” changed their minds.

  9. The Ugly: Decisions were contrary to existing guidance • On multiple occasions FEMA made decisions that were contrary to FEMA guidance (4 major problems) • CAT B and CAT C issue • Roads with damage less than $1,000.00 listed as non-eligible • Waste Treatment Plant/Private contractor issues • Private contractor labor not allowed while their equipment was (were ghosts operating the equipment or was it a Google tractor)

  10. The Ugly: Lack of urgency • PA Declaration July 9, 2012 • Applicant Brief August 2 • September 14 meeting held to discuss county concern over lack of urgency (5 total PWs written) 5 new PWs promised by the 9-21 • September 18; began developing daily recovery strep to track progress 5 PWs written (day 71 since declaration) • September28 5pws written (day 81) This is 0 since the promise of 5 new PWs by the 21st!

  11. The Ugly: Staffing inconstancies • At least 8 project specialists were assigned to Wakulla • This led to a learning curve for all involved each time a new specialist arrived • Damages were shown multiple times • Each new specialist wanted to perform a site visit, take pictures and measurements. This information was not passed down to new FEMA personnel • Recommendations and comments were not consistent among FEMA staff

  12. Eligibility determinations were made in the field • We were promised by the FCO that determinations would be made in the JFO • The majority of PWs were submitted with an eligibility determination in the field. • The four major points of contention were zeroed out in the filed before ever being submitted to the JFO. They were submitted with an eligibility call that was contrary to guidance

  13. Multiple promises were made from the JFO; many of these were not followed in the field • The most comical of all: • During a high level meeting (FCO, County Administrator, County Chairman, Attorney, etc.) The FCO stated that her staff was clear that any site with damages of less than $1,000 would be grouped where reasonable. While in this meeting, her staff submitted PWs zeroing out any site less than $1,000.00 regardless of reasonableness The Ugly: Communication/Leadership

  14. The following is quoted from FEMA 322 (Public Assistance Guide, pages 98 – 99: Combining Work and Creating Projects The first paragraph states, “The Applicant, in coordination with the PAC Crew leader, may combine work items into projects.  In this manner, the projects may be organized around the applicant’s needs.  A project may consist of one item of work, such as repairs to a single structure, or work that occurs at multiple sites, such as repairs to several washouts along a road.   Table 7: Combining WorkMethod​ Explanation Type of Facility​ an applicant could combine all sewer pump stations or gravel roads together.System​ an applicant could combine repair of several breaks in a water distribution system together Boundaries​an applicant may have divided power lines into sections or a road department into divisions for ease of operations The final paragraph on page 98 and continuing onto page 99 states, “FEMA regulations state that individual projects of less than $1,000 in estimated costs are not eligible.  However, it is acceptable to combine sites less than $1,000 in estimated costs into one PW when the work meets the conditions shown above for combining sites.

  15. The Ugly: More concerned with image than outcome • On multiple occasions FEMA was more concerned about how they looked to the public and public officials than the outcome • Masters of telling you what you want to hear • Make a promise follow guidance and find some stick-to-itiveness • Say what you mean, mean what you say and develop a positive outcome • It matters

  16. We won; enough said The Ugly :sites less than $1000.00

  17. Wakulla County hires a private company to manage Public Works. The equipment is owned by the county. The contract pays for straight time. FEMA believed that the county was not eligible for contract labor but was eligible for equipment WE won The Ugly: No reimbursement for contract labor

  18. FEMA stance that if you performed CAT B work the project would not be eligible for CAT C The failed to realize the difference between making a road passible for emergency workers and repairing a road to pre-existing conditions WE WON The Ugly: Cat b and c can’t be performed on the same dirt rad

  19. That’s it folks!

More Related