Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 001-91006; Oakland Unified School District
DSR ID# 97465; Elementary School Repairs & Material Replacement
March 9, 1999
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
PO Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to your letter dated June 17, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With that letter, you forwarded a second appeal of Damage Survey Report (DSR) 97465 under FEMA-1044-DR-CA on behalf of Oakland Unified School District (District). The subgrantee is requesting re-obligation of DSR 97465 and a total of $43,096 for carpet and wall repairs, fences and engineering at Stonehurst Elementary School.
The heavy rains of 1995, ponded on the flat-topped roof of Stonehurst Elementary School in Oakland, California. A February 20, 1995, inspection indicated that the excessive rain then entered the school's ventilation system, damaging the walls, ceiling, floors, and classroom materials. FEMA prepared DSR 97465 for $7,732 for classroom materials. However, the DSR did not identify any facility damages and provided no funding for facility repairs. Upon review, funding for personal classroom materials was eliminated and the DSR was approved for $4,304. In the first appeal, the District contended all of the classroom materials ($7,732) were the District's property and requested reinstatement of $3,428. The Regional Director determined that the damages resulted from a later sewer overflow (April 30, 1995) and not DR-1044,
(January 3, 1995, through February 10, 1995). The appeal was denied and DSR 97645 was de-obligated. The District requested a time extension to complete forms to differentiate the damages attributable to each event.
In the second appeal, the applicant contends that the damages were caused by DR-1044. The applicant is re-obligation of DSR 97465 and $43,096, including $21,005 to remove and replace carpet, $4,688 for fencing, $3,124 for wall replacement, $1,758 for engineering, and $11,098 for District force account labor and $1,423 for other miscellaneous expenses. In support of the appeal, the applicant provided District time or labor reports and a breakdown and invoices of these expenses. The appeal also included a letter from the school identifying the April 30, 1995, sewer overflow. The main issue of this appeal is whether the damages to the facility and the contents were a direct result of the DR-1044.
Regarding the cause of the damages, the letter from the school confirms that a sewer overflow occurred within the school on April 30, 1995, four months after the disaster. However, the District provided force account labor records and invoices for contract labor and materials attempting to demonstrate that the damages were a result of the roof overflow during DR-1044, and not the sewer overflow. The force account labor records provided includes $11,098 for floor-level cabinet and wall repairs. However, these records do not include any hours for roof or ceiling repairs. Similarly, the contract labor and materials breakdown indicate that the remaining $31,998 was expended primarily for fencing and carpet replacement. These invoices also do not include any roof or ceiling repair expenditures, which would be indicative of roof flooding and damages from DR-1044 and not the later sewer overflow. Although the documentation does demonstrate that the District spent funds in July and August of 1995 (nearly seven months after DR-1044) for wall and carpet repairs, these repairs do not demonstrate that the damages were a direct result of DR-1044. Pursuant to 44 CFR 206.233, to be eligible for funding an item of work must be required as a direct result of the major disaster. Review of the documentation provided does not indicate that the facility repairs were necessary as a direct result of DR-1044. As, such the second appeal for these expenses is denied.
Regarding the damages to the classroom materials, the damages to the materials were identified in the February 20, 1995, DSR, which was prepared prior to the later sewer overflow. The documentation also demonstrates the materials were the applicant's property. As such, $7,732 for these expenses is eligible for funding and this portion of the second appeal is approved. With this letter, I am requesting the Disaster Recovery Manager to prepare a DSR to provide this funding.
Please inform the applicant of my determination. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206.
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Martha Z. Whetstone
FEMA Region IX