Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />In addition. the committee sug- <br />gested that cerIain projects be modi- <br />fied. This came about especially for <br />communities IhaI had included <br />churches. schools. and commercial <br />buildings in Iheir lisI of projecIs. <br />Coupled with Ihe foregoing. some <br />communities had commercial projects <br />so large IhaI they would have required <br />75-100 percent of allIhe funding avail- <br />able to Missouri. The commiltee be- <br />lieved that funding only one or two <br />very large projecIs would not have <br />proven to be Ihe most enhancing for <br />the HMGP staIewide efforr. Many <br />projecIs were therefore only forwarded <br />10 FEMA afIer the scopes were ad- <br />justed. The commiltee also rejected a <br />small number of projecIs because they <br />largely did noI meeI Ihe requirements <br />of Section 206. 434 CFR 44. <br /> <br />The process moved quickly. at <br />leaSI for that time frame. Methods have <br />now been devised. which if followed <br />properly would cause the process to <br />move even more rapidly. When <br />"buyouts'. are anIicipaIed. all efforts <br />must focus on shortening the amounI <br />of time involved in the administrative <br />process. Homeowners. when buyouts <br />are addressed to them. have only two <br />questions - "When and how much?. <br />They perceive all other issues. espe- <br />cially those Ihat generate delays. to be <br />Ihe resulI of bureaucraIic inefficiency. <br /> <br />Applicant briefings and reviews <br />really began in earnesI in early Janu- <br />ary 1994. By July 1994. all projecIs. <br />5 I in number. were approved for fund- <br />ing. The Bellefontaine Neighbors <br />projecI was among Ihe firsI to be <br />funded and the first to be completed. <br />On July 9. 1994. Governor Carnahan. <br />FEMA Director James Lee WitI. and <br />oIhers participated in a ceremony at <br />Bellefonraine Neighbors in which <br />horneowners for 22 properties received <br />checks for their buyout properry. <br /> <br />Demolition of the site followed <br />immediately. On the same day. Ihe <br /> <br />group traveled to Paltonsburg. Mis- <br />souri. 10 announce approval of $3.8 <br />million for acquisition and relocation <br />of properties in what is now referred <br />to as '.Old Town."' By all sIandards to <br />measure progress for such projects <br />available at that time. Ihe effort was <br />acclaimed a great success. Lessons <br />learned since thar time. if applied ap- <br />propriaIely. can shorren the buyout <br />process by several monrhs for fuIure <br />disaster evenrs. <br /> <br />Once the projects were processed <br />and approved for funding. SEMA's <br />management emphasis shifted 10 the <br />execuIion of the projecIs. Subparr N, <br />SecIion 206.433 establishes in parr the <br />responsibility of the Slate - the <br />"grantee.. once projecIs are funded. <br />Section 206.433(a) reads: <br /> <br />(a) Grantee: The state will be <br />the guarantee to which funds <br />are awarded and will be ac- <br />countable for the use of these <br />funds. There may be <br />subgrantees within the state <br />government. <br /> <br />The process moved <br />quickly, at least for that <br />time frame. Methods have <br />now been devised, which if <br />followed properly will aid <br />the process to move even <br />more rapidly. <br /> <br />SEMA.s managemenr took the <br />foregoing at face value and Iherefore <br />established various policies and pro- <br />cedures which were designed to ensure <br />proper use and accountability of funds. <br />As each community was approved for <br />funding, a mandaIory meeting was <br />scheduled with local officials. The pur- <br />pose of these meetings was 10 convey <br />the process to be followed for actual <br />acquisitions, draw-down of funds, and <br />resoluIion of other issues that surfaced. <br /> <br />FEMA VII officials were invited <br />to altend these meeIings; to their credit. <br />they did altend many of Ihem - a course <br />of action Ihat continues 10 be advisable <br />for future programs. The emphasis at <br />these meetings was on Ihe controls and <br />requiremenIs that would have to be met <br />before funds could or would be re- <br />leased. For example. funds could be <br />requested based upon anticipaIed <br />needs. This prevenIed a cash !low <br />problem for small communities thaI <br />would have had 10 borrow money if the <br />approach had been on a reimbursable <br />basis. <br /> <br /> <br />SEMA. however, made sure Ihat <br />the anticipared need was based on spe- <br />cific acquisitions - i.e.. specitic dwell- <br />ings to be purchased. along a specifi- <br />cally required time line. This process <br />was eXIremely successful. and also <br />should be followed for fuIure HMGP <br />projecIs. <br /> <br />Another item thaI received inrense <br />management, once communities were <br />funded, was a process that became <br />known as a Duplication of BenefiIs <br />(DaB) determination. CFR 44. SecIion <br />206.434 (f) is quoted as follows: <br /> <br />"Section 404 funds cannot be <br />used as a substitute or replace- <br />ment to fund projects or pro- <br />grams that are available under <br />other Federal authorities, ex- <br />cept under limited circum- <br />stances in which there are ex- <br />traordinary threats to lives, <br />public health or safety or im- <br />proved property." <br /> <br />The depIh to which the above ap- <br />plied to an actual acquisition of a <br />dwelling was not understood by many, <br />nor did all agree with the policy once <br />iI was explained. To the specific credit <br />of FEMA VII. a special acIion office <br />was esIablished 10 "clear". the DaB is- <br />sues - which had 10 be accomplished <br />for each property to be acquired. The <br />clearance process had to be compleIed <br /> <br />Page 5 <br />