Download:
pdf |
pdfFEMA-1874-DR-VA
Public Assistance Program
Severe Winter Storm and Snowstorm
Declared 2/16/2010
68 completed surveys returned out of a sample of 129.
52% Response Rate
Administered by:
Customer Satisfaction Analysis (CSA) Section
POC: Kathy Canaday, Program Analyst
Contact: 940-891-8856
E-mail Address: [email protected]
July 21, 2011
1
PA Program & Process Satisfaction
DR
Overall
PA Program
PA Process
DR 1871
93.73
97.96
89.5
DR 1872
100
100
100
DR 1873
96.45
97.6
95.3
DR 1874
78.00
79.0
77.00
Overall
92.05
93.64
90.45
100
90
Target
Rate = 90%
80
70
60
DR 1871
DR 1872
DR 1873
DR 1874
Overall
2
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
2. What is your organization type?
State Grantee
Tribal Grantee
14%
0%
Subgrantee
86%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
3
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
What is your position within your State organization
State Director
0%
Governor's Authorized…
10%
Alternate GAR
0%
Public Assistance Officer (POA)
0%
Deputy POA
0%
State Coordination Officer (SCO)
0%
Assistant SCO
0%
Other
90%
0%
Other: None listed
20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
4
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
What is your position within your Subgrantee organization
Local government
68%
State subgrantee
Special district
11%
0%
Private non-profit
13%
Indian tribe/tribal… 0%
Other
8%
0%
Other: None listed
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
5
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
3. What type(s) of projects(s) did you apply for?
Not applicable
5%
All large projects
10%
All small projects
56%
More large than small projects
3%
More small than large projects
20%
Equal number of large and small projects
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
6
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
4. Applicants have the option of writing their own Project Worksheet(s) for
small projects. For the small projects for which you applied, did you choose
to write your own Project Worksheet(s)?
All of the time
17%
Most of the time
7%
Half of the time
5%
Some of the time
24%
Never
35%
Not Applicable
12%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
7
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
5. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Public Assistance Program?
Very satisfied
26%
Satisfied
41%
Slightly satisfied
12%
Slightly dissatisfied
9%
Dissatisfied
6%
Very dissatisfied
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
8
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
6. Overall, how satisfied are you with the Public Assistance process?
Very satisfied
18%
Satisfied
39%
Slightly satisfied
20%
Slightly dissatisfied
11%
Dissatisfied
6%
Very dissatisfied
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
9
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
7. How satisfied were you with the published information FEMA provided on
the Public Assistance Program (e.g., documents on FEMA’s website,
documents received at the Kickoff Meeting, etc.)?
Very satisfied
27%
Satisfied
50%
Slightly satisfied
8%
Slightly dissatisfied
9%
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
5%
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
10
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
8. How satisfied were you with staff’s communication of information?
Very satisfied
36%
Satisfied
50%
Slightly satisfied
6%
Slightly dissatisfied
3%
Dissatisfied
2%
Very dissatisfied
3%
Never dealt with staff
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80% 100%
11
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
9. How satisfied were you with the information FEMA provided you
concerning the availability of Public Assistance mitigation funding?
Very Satisfied
23%
Satisfied
50%
Slightly satisfied
9%
Slighlty dissatisfied
3%
Dissatisfied
4%
Very dissatisfied
3%
Did not receive any information
8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
12
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
10. The field staff understood the eligibility requirements:
All of the time
64%
Most of the time
29%
More than half of the time
2%
Less than half of the time
3%
Some of the time
Never
1%
0%
Do not know
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
13
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
11. The field staff that conducted the site visit(s) were competent and
understood the types of damage they were assessing:
All of the time
70%
Most of the time
14%
More than half of the time
Less than half of the time
3%
0%
Some of the time
3%
Never
1%
Do not know
1%
NA - No site visit necessary
5%
NA - Site visit not yet conducted
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
14
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
12. The field staff that conducted the site visit(s) understood the local
conditions that could influence the rebuilding process.
Strongly agree
33%
Agree
47%
Slightly agree
3%
Slightly disagree
2%
Disagree
1%
Strongly disagree
1%
Do not know
5%
NA - No site visit necessary
5%
NA - Site visit not yet conducted
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
15
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
13. How reliable were the decisions and information you received from staff?
Very reliable
42%
Reliable
43%
Slightly reliable
5%
Slightly unreliable
3%
Unreliable
3%
Very unreliable
1%
Do not know
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
16
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
14. Was staff turnover a problem?
Yes
13%
No
79%
Do not know
8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
17
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
15. Overall, how satisfied were you with the customer service provided by
staff?
Very Satisfied
51%
Satisfied
36%
Slightly satisfied
3%
Slighlty dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
7%
0%
Very dissatisfied
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
18
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
16. Overall, how satisfied were you with the responsiveness provided by
staff?
Very Satisfied
46%
Satisfied
37%
Slightly satisfied
7%
Slighlty dissatisfied
6%
Dissatisfied
2%
Very dissatisfied
2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
19
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
17. Overall, how satisfied were you with the Project Worksheet process?
Very Satisfied
23%
Satisfied
47%
Slightly satisfied
17%
Slighlty dissatisfied
6%
Dissatisfied
6%
Very dissatisfied
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
20
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
18a. Did you receive Public Assistance mitigation funding?
Yes, received funding
27%
No, applied for but did not receive
funding
21%
Do not know
20%
NA - Did not apply for funding
32%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
21
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
18b. How satisfied were you with the amount of Public Assistance mitigation
funding you received?
Very Satisfied
42%
Satisfied
26%
Slightly satisfied
21%
Slighlty dissatisfied
0%
Dissatisfied
0%
Very dissatisfied
Do not Know
11%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Only answered by those who answered “yes” to Question 18a.
100%
22
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
19. If FEMA conducted a site visit, FEMA conducted the Project Worksheet
site visit(s):
Too soon after the disaster
0%
At the right time
67%
Too late to be helpful
3%
Do not know
18%
Site visit(s) not yet conducted
1%
NA - No site visit(s) necessary…
0%
11%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
23
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
20. If FEMA developed the scope(s) of work, how satisfied were you with
their development?
Very Satisfied
31%
Satisfied
42%
Slightly satisfied
3%
Slighlty dissatisfied
1%
Dissatisfied
0%
Very dissatisfied
0%
Do not Know
9%
NA-Always wrote own PW
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
24
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
21. If FEMA identified damage repair cost estimates, how satisfied were you
with these estimates?
Very Satisfied
22%
Satisfied
38%
Slightly satisfied
5%
Slighlty dissatisfied
0%
Dissatisfied
0%
Very dissatisfied
2%
Do not know
Cost estimates not yet completed
9%
2%
NA-Always wrote own PW
22%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
25
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
22. If you wrote your own Project Worksheet(s), how satisfied were you with
completing your Project Worksheet(s) in terms of its complexity, your
time invested, and the availability of necessary information?
Very Satisfied
18%
Satisfied
21%
Slightly satisfied
21%
Slighlty dissatisfied
12%
Dissatisfied
0%
Very dissatisfied
0%
NA-Always wrote own PW
28%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
26
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
23. If you had any small projects, and you chose not to write your own Project
Worksheet(s), please briefly explain why you asked FEMA to write your
Project Worksheet(s).
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• VDOT wrote all the PW's relating to snow removal and FEMA did the severe weather PW's. We
had multiple disasters going on at the same time and it was easier to allow FEMA to write the
project worksheets.
• they offered and were much more competent to write them as our staff
• Unfamiliarity with the process.
• This was my first time dealing with reimbursement from FEMA and did not feel I had the
knowledge to write our own Project Worksheet.
• I found the forms to be confusing and complicated. If not for the assistance of field staff, I
would not have followed through. I was satisfied with most of my interactions with FEMA, it is
the state agency with whom I had difficulties.
• Had numerous problems working with the Project Worksheet. Many areas of the spreadsheet
had become corrupt. Could not get a clean copy from other jurisdictions, the State, or the
FEMA representative
• Our project specialist (J Sweeney) offered to write the PWs.
• John Carr, our Fema Representative volunteered to draft our project worksheet while he was
27
here.
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
23. If you had any small projects, and you chose not to write your own Project
Worksheet(s), please briefly explain why you asked FEMA to write your
Project Worksheet(s).
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• I completed some of the project worksheet such as the payroll, equipment, labor and contractor information.
However, I didn't complete the scope of work. I relied on Sandra Haizlip, the FEMA rep to help me complete
the PWs as she seemed to know what information was necessary to be included. Also, she knew what
supporting documentation was needed for all of the expenditures. I didn't mind putting together all the
required supporting documentation but the project worksheets just seemed to be so huge and cumbersome
for small projects. However, Sandra Haizlip was very helpful and patient. I can't answer question 21 since
FEMA did not identify any damage repair cost estimates because we either had the projects completed by
the time they came or we obtained our own estimates from contractors.
• We did not ask, it was offered to us by the FEMA rep. and suggested that it was quicker for him to do it. Not
having gone through this process before, we had no reason to doubt him.
• n/a
• This was the first time the staff had dealings with this paperwork (we have a new finance administrator). The
FEMA Reps worked closely with the county and towns to help us through this process.
• Staff assisted us with worksheets during site visit. Staff help was greatly appreciated in writing the scope.
• Im not sure if it was FEMA or VDOM but it was very difficult getting through the process. We had teams
come out to help but they required as much staff time as if I did the project worksheet myself. And despite
the assistance the worksheets were returned for corrections.
28
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
23. If you had any small projects, and you chose not to write your own Project
Worksheet(s), please briefly explain why you asked FEMA to write your
Project Worksheet(s).
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• I developed and wrote my own project worksheets in Excel. FEMA Field Staff took data and entered into
Work Sheet. If they're available electronically, wasn't aware of it. Our Field Staff was professional, courteous,
and very helpful.
• All of the PWs were written collaboratively, we supplied all of the data including the force account sheets and
narratives, FEMA developed the PWs.
• The Town asked FEMA to write the Project Worksheets due to the FEMA representatives expertise on
completing the worksheet and the volume of the project worksheets.
• I didn't ask them to write it.
• This was my first experience working with FEMA on the grant process and the staff that was sent out by
FEMA was very understanding of my limited understanding of the process; they offered to help with the
more complex worksheets and wrote those for me. I was most appreciative of the learning process that this
provided me.
• No one on the planet understands the FEMA paperwork which changes every two weeks.
• The FEMA representative offered to help with the worksheets and we were very happy for the assistance.
• The field staff was more experienced and capable of writing the Project Worksheet.
• FEMA assisted us in writing Project Worksheets as we went through the process.
29
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
24. How satisfied were you with FEMA’s timeliness:
A. Overall:
Very Satisfied
22%
Satisfied
36%
Slightly satisfied
15%
Slighlty dissatisfied
11%
Dissatisfied
10%
Very dissatisfied
6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
30
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
24. How satisfied were you with FEMA’s timeliness:
B. In relation to providing information:
Very Satisfied
39%
Satisfied
42%
Slightly satisfied
10%
Slighlty dissatisfied
3%
Dissatisfied
3%
Very dissatisfied
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
31
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
24. How satisfied were you with FEMA’s timeliness:
C. In relation to making eligibility decisions:
Very Satisfied
30%
Satisfied
51%
Slightly satisfied
3%
Slighlty dissatisfied
7%
Dissatisfied
5%
Very dissatisfied
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
32
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
24. How satisfied were you with FEMA’s timeliness:
D. In relation to providing funds:
Very Satisfied
20%
Satisfied
31%
Slightly satisfied
11%
Slighlty dissatisfied
6%
Dissatisfied
16%
Very dissatisfied
16%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
33
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
25. How reasonable were administrative requirements for the following?
A. Overall
Very reasonable
12%
Reasonable
59%
Slightly reasonable
14%
Slightly unreasonable
5%
Unreasonable
6%
Very unreasonable
4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
34
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
25. How reasonable were administrative requirements for the following?
B. Pre-disaster documentation
Very reasonable
11%
Reasonable
70%
Slightly reasonable
11%
Slightly unreasonable
Unreasonable
5%
0%
Very unreasonable
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
35
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
25. How reasonable were administrative requirements for the following?
C. Project Worksheet review
Very reasonable
24%
Reasonable
54%
Slightly reasonable
6%
Slightly unreasonable
9%
Unreasonable
4%
Very unreasonable
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
36
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
25. How reasonable were administrative requirements for the following?
D. Payment of claims
Very reasonable
17%
Reasonable
37%
Slightly reasonable
7%
Slightly unreasonable
11%
Unreasonable
14%
Very unreasonable
14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
37
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
26. Is there anything you would have liked FEMA to have done differently
during this disaster recovery?
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• No, because the FEMA PAC worked out of our office which made it very easy to get questions
answered in a timely manner.
• there response to our appeal took forever and here over one year after the declared disaster we are
still waiting for payment of some project worksheets.
• Speed up the time for payment of claims.
• FEMA officials and State Officials didn't always appear to be on the same page.
• No
• I was told by field staff that staff overtime that the agency incurred as a direct result of the storm
could be claimed and that was overturned at a regional level
• After almost one year from the first visit STILL NO MONEY PAID!
• It took a longer time frame from the completion of documentation and award decision until
reimbursement was delivered. I would suggest a little quicker action regarding sending the award,
once documentation is completed
• I think everyone wanted to help and did but the problem is the funding. It has been over a year and
we still have not received the funding. I have also had to resubmit information even though people
tell me that it was done already. Working for a nonprofit myself, I can understand the heavy work
load and everyone was very nice and wanted to help. I just think that the funding (payment) issue
puts a damper on an overall good process.
38
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
26. Is there anything you would have liked FEMA to have done differently
during this disaster recovery?
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• Would have liked to see this process begin sooner. Storm occurred in December but PA didn't begin
until July. This makes it difficult gathering additional information from those impacted especially
since the jurisdiction was impacted again between the time of this storm and the time the PA
process began.
• It has been a year and 1/2 since the disaster and we only last month received half of the funds. Who
knows when we will receive the other half? Why is the state taking so long to review the claim when
everything was reviewed by FEMA at the outset?
• For this disaster we were determined ineligible even though the County surrounding us was
declared. Communicating with staff was frustrating as their voicemail box was full or emails went
unreturned. An appeal was attempted but I cannot be certain it was ever received. For the snow
storm declaration in December of 2009 we were reviewed multiple times and changes were made
by each staff member. This process was not easy and the apparently overworked staff seemed
overwhelmed. Snm
• I thought the field representatives did a excellent job while on site.It would be nice to know where
the application status is currently.Until we received this survey form,we had no idea if or when we
would be rewarded our funds.We are truly blessed to have FEMA to help accelerate recovery during
a disaster.
• We still haven't received funding even though we completed all paperwork last June.
39
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
26. Is there anything you would have liked FEMA to have done differently
during this disaster recovery?
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• project worksheets in Excel were a problem. field workers could not fix coding errors to allow data
entry and had to take our developed worksheets. poor worksheet design & implementation. office
controls worksheet and field workers can't fix the errors. very frustating.
• Not ask for the same paperwork multiple times from multiple people when there was staff turnover.
Ask for all of the paperwork up front vs. asking for one set, then another set once that comes in.
Having the reps be consistent in what they ask. One rep told us a specific letter on letterhead was
sufficient and his replacement said it was not.
• n/a
• Nothing noted at this time
• Can't think of a thing. We "adopted" our field reps. Thanks for all you do. Jane Bennett, Emergency
Manager, Wise County, VA 276-328-2321
• We had some confusion about applying with the jurisdiction or if we had to apply on our own. At
first we were told to apply with the jurisdiction then told we had to apply on our own. This slowed
and confused the initial filling and slowed payment.
• Communicated more with us...we emailed and called several times with no response from FEMA.
• Initially, there was little communication and coordination at the State level. Time-lines, information,
updates, response and guidance not delivered. After the kick-off meeting FEMA field representative,
Mr. TJ Tremmel, assisted greatly and expeditiously. Overall, under the circumstances, Mr. Tremmel
made it a pleasurable experience.
40
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
26. Is there anything you would have liked FEMA to have done differently
during this disaster recovery?
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• Tell the truth...................The amount of paperwork is ridiculous. Why does it take two years to get
reimbursed? We would up doing the same paperwork three or more times because the FEMA reps
kept losing or throwing the paperwork away. The communication between FEMA and the State was
terrible. The Computer Excel spreadsheets were all corrupted and did not work properly. The FEMA
reservist didn't know what they were doing. One reservist would say something then the next
person would say something totally different. Considering the amount of work that it takes to get
any reimbursement out of FEMA it is really not worth the effort. If that is FEMA's intent......To make
it so difficult that Local Jurisdictions will just not submit, then bravo, I think FEMA's plan is working.
• It would have been helpful to know exactly what documentation was going to be necessary from the
beginning in order to receive the funds once they were approved. It takes a lot of time to gather this
information and it could have been gathered while we were waiting to hear from FEMA on the next
step.
• We have had an "approval" letter yet have not received payment. While I understand our claim is
small in the big picture, it was submitted, reviewed and approved. Our kickoff meeting was held over
three months after event and some of documentation hard to acquire and review.
• We are still waiting for our funding to come through after submittal of project worksheets in August
2010. FEMA staff helped us with the submittal of project worksheets. If there was a problem with
the submittal, someone should have followed up with us in order to get this claim processed. Initial
Field Staff assistance was excellent.
41
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
27. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions regarding the
Public Assistance Program. (Continued)
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• For this to have been my first time dealing with anything like this I was very pleased with how
helpful the Field Rep was and how he walked me through all of the paperwork.
• NA
• In my situation, the state department slowed the process enormously. Perhaps it was because
my claim was so small.
• Overall this has not really worked well considering the relatively small amount of payment that
we expected to receive.
• I was pleased as a whole with the FEMA response to our requests. Nealia Dabney was
particularly helpful. She could almost always be reached by phone if not she returned phone
calls and e-mails. The gentlemen who made our site visit were extremely knowledgeable and
provided valuable assistance
• Cannot see that adding the state review level has added anything but slowness to the review
process.
• The program either needs a more streamlined process or a dedicated group of staff that are
able to provide consistent reviews and guidance.
42
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
27. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions regarding the
Public Assistance Program. (Continued)
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• The excel spreadsheet provided for the 1874 disaster had a few glitches, such as the macros
not working properly. Once information was entered it was difficult to update and/or change. I
think the new spreadsheet was an improvement over previous disasters I worked on but still
needs some work. I would like to see the ability to directly upload information, instead of
needing to provide so much paperwork.
• n/a
• The program and process was "near perfect" for our little county.
• Clearer instructions for Higher Education Institutions in regards to applying for disaster
funding.
• Need to hold states more accountable about paying our monies. Still have not received final
payment.
• The Public Assistance Program has been very helpful to the University during difficult
situations. The only issues that we have experienced could be attributed to the difficulties of
operating within state guidelines (ours) for construction projects and trying to do that in a
timely matter. FEMA, rightly, would like to close things out and we are shackled by out
insurance requirements and mandated procedures that slow things down significantly. We
43
sincerely appreciate the paitience that has been shown to us in these situations.
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
27. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions regarding the
Public Assistance Program. (Continued)
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• 1. All policies should be in writing and given to thew applicant. 2. The Force account labor worksheets are a
mess. The formulas did not work, there was a virus on the disk FEMA gave us! 3. The force account labor
forms do not take into account traditional public safety staff according to the unwritten FEMA rules/policies
concerning Public Safety overtime eligibility. THE STAFFOR4D ACT IS FINE BUT ALL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
ADJUSTMENTS MADE BY FEMA OVER THE YEARS MAKE IT CUMBERSOME AT BEST. THIS WAS THE FIRST
SNOW DISASTER UNDER THE NEW SNOW POLICY AND IT WAS UNFAIR AND UNJUST TO THE COMMUNITIES.
THE SNOW POLICY NEEDS TO MIRROR THE INTENT OF THE STAFFORD ACT NOT BE A SEPERATE ACT IN
ITSELF.
• The process for seeking reimbursement started off smoothly with the field staff explaining what was needed
and how the process was to work. The responses to the questions in this survey are reflective of the
frustration and disappointment in the administrative process of seeking reimbursement from FEMA. It has
been 16 months since the storm and approximately a year since the request was submitted to FEMA. During
this time Town staff has been asked to resubmit information multiple times as well as being asked to submit
information that was not previously requested because of different interpretations of the regulations from
one FEMA representative to another FEMA representative. This experience has left a negative impression of
FEMA with the Town and a lack of confidence in working together in the future, if required.
44
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
27. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions regarding the
Public Assistance Program. (Continued)
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• It is not worth dealing with. FEMA should have a new policy.....If the project is not worth at least one million
dollars FEMA should not provide any assistance. It's not worth a localities time to spend two years doing
worthless paperwork to get less money than that. Ask yourself, why localities have to hire contractors to do
their FEMA Disaster paperwork.......Don't you think that maybe there is a flaw in your system. When your
paperwork is so screwed up that local governments have to hire someone to do that work????
• We provided time sheets for the project worksheets to the representatives in the beginning and all labor
information was submitted. After a year, we were asked to provide proof of payment and check record that
payment was received for labor. It would have beneficial in the beginning to know that we needed to
submitted that proof of documentation. This made our filing process delayed to gathered the information
that was needed. However, staff was very patient and worked with us to allow us to gather the necessary
documentation. We did have turnover from our projects passed on from one representative then to
another. But everyone that assisted us was very accommodating and helpful. We appreciate the
opportunity to apply for the funding to help our jurisdiction with the expenses from both storms. Thanks
again for the help and support. At this time, we have not received any funding.
• Probabley my only comment during this process is regarding the time period of getting our funds. This
snow storm happened in Dec 2009 and we still have not received any funds. Everytwo/three months I will
get email with more info that is needed.
• FEMA has approved, have received little support from state on the fund delivery process and no actual
45
dollars. We are now over 18 months from event, I can only hope we do not go through a major disaster.
FEMA-1874-DR-VA
27. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions regarding the
Public Assistance Program. (Continued)
NOTE: The following comments and suggestions have not been edited, with the
exception of redacting personal identifiers.
• I am not sure what caused the hold up in receiving funds, however I think that it was at the
State level. We had to submit the same documentation several times and are just now
receiving the funds for a relative simple disaster (snow storm cleanup, no reconstruction). The
FEMA representative was very helpful.
• Field Staff was excellent in coming in and discussing what had to be done and assisting us in
writing project worksheets. However, lack of follow-up between FEMA after submittal of
project worksheets. If additional information was needed, FEMA staff should have called and
requested. Have been waiting for payment with no knowledge of any additional information
needed. Thought everything had been submitted that was required.
• Program was very helpful. Staff was knowledgeable and helped us through this process.
• The whole application process was too problematic. Information had to be submitted more
than once so duplication was a problem. The application should be refined and reduced and
submittal of mitigation could be more timely.
46
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | FEMA-1871-DR-NC |
| Author | mwasp |
| File Modified | 2011-11-02 |
| File Created | 2011-07-28 |