Former Bank of America Building

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1044-DR
ApplicantPlumas County Airport Department
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#063-91010
PW ID#79385
Date Signed1998-02-18T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1044-DR-CA; Plumas County Airport Department, Former Bank of America Building

Cross Reference: Roof Snow Load Damage, Permanent Restoration, Disaster Related Damage

Summary: Eight feet of snow accumulated on the roof of the former Bank of America Building prior to the disaster declaration. Twenty-one inches of rainfall followed the snow accumulation and the roof structure failed. Temporary repairs were performed that restored the live-load bearing of the roof to 14 pounds per square foot (SPF) for $3,447. Bids were received to repair the structure to its predisaster design for $20,448, replace the entire roof structure for $102,674, and replace the structure at another location for $81,900. An engineer for the subgrantee estimated that the roof had a 40 to 45 PSF live-load capacity as compared to the 43 PSF snow load that preceded the 21 inches of rain. The scope of work for DSR 74227 was written for replacement of roof trusses and damaged elements to the predisaster design and function for $24,895. The first appeal request cited a local roofing standard (100 PSF for roof repairs) and the 50% rule to support replacing the building at an alternate location. The first appeal response de-obligated all funding with DSR 79385, indicating that the damage was due to a lack of maintenance and not the disaster. The second appeal claims there was no lack of maintenance. Snow loads of up to 90 PSF had been experienced previously without roof failure, as compared to the 40 to 45 PSF snow load on the roof before the rains began. The subgrantee again appealed for funding for replacement of the building.

Issues:
  1. Is replacement of the building eligible?
  2. Is repair of the roof eligible?
  3. Is there an eligible code or standard for roof repair?
Findings:
  1. No. The estimated cost for repairing the damaged part of the roof ($20,448) is less than 50% of the estimated replacement cost ($81,900).
  2. Yes. The repair of the portion of the roof that was damaged by the disaster is eligible.
  3. Yes. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) requires that failed portions of roofs be repaired to the code requirement for new roof construction, as established by county building officials.
Rationale: To be eligible for replacement, it must be demonstrated that the repair costs exceed 50% of the replacement cost, per 44 CFR 206.226(d), and that is not the case in this instance. Per 44 CFR 206.223(1), only work that is required as a direct result of a declared disaster is eligible; however, the repairs will be in accordance with adopted codes. UBC Section 3403.2 requires that repairs to damaged portions of buildings be made to code requirements for new buildings.

Appeal Letter

February 18, 1998

Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741

Dear Mr. Christian:

This letter is in response to your July 29, 1997, submittal of the Plumas County Airport Department's second appeal for disaster assistance for the repair of the damaged roof of the 4,046-square foot building known as the former Bank of America Building. Damage survey report (DSR) 74227 was written to repair the section of the roof that was damaged by the weight of the snow and rain.

The subgrantee is appealing FEMA's determination that the damages to the roof were due to the lack of maintenance and requests reimbursement for the cost of replacement. After review of the appeal, I have determined that the damages were directly related to the disaster and, therefore, repairs are eligible. However, the only repair that is eligible for restoration is the damaged section of the roof to meet the applicable code. Replacement of the building is not eligible because the cost of repairs to the predisaster design is less than 50% of the replacement cost. The subgrantee should solicit bids and provide information showing bid requests, bid results, and, if applicable, bid award for the eligible work. By copy of this letter, I am asking the Regional Director to determine the eligible cost from the bid estimates and the cost of temporary repairs, less any insurance proceeds, and prepare a DSR for any increase in eligible costs. Please refer to the enclosed analysis for more detail.

Please inform the subgrantee of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.

Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

Enclosure

cc: Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
During the January storms of 1995, a roof collapsed on a 4,046 square-foot building owned by the Plumas County Airport Department. The building was known as the former Bank of America Building. The collapse was a result of the weight of an eight-foot snow pack on the roof combined with 21 inches of rain that fell in January. County code requires that repairs or modifications to existing structures satisfy a snow load requirement of 100 pounds per square foot (PSF). Documentation in the damage survey report (DSR) included estimates for repair of the building to its predisaster condition ($24,895), replacement of the entire roof to meet current codes for new construction ($106,121), and construction of a replacement structure ($85,347). One estimate was received for the first two options and two estimates were received for replacement. Each estimate included temporary shoring costs. The subgrantee favored replacement. However, DSR 79385 was written for $24,895 which included the actual cost of temporary shoring to stabilize the building and the estimated cost to repair the roof to its predisaster condition. To date, only the temporary repair work has been performed on the roof.

First Appeal
On September 20, 1996, the subgrantee submitted the first appeal to the State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES). The first appeal stated that FEMA's estimate of eligibility did not consider the present code and requested a review. On November 19, 1996, OES forwarded the subgrantee's first appeal stating that, while meeting current standards, the replacement cost ($85,347) was less than the repair cost ($102,674). On April 3, 1997, the Regional Director denied the first appeal and de-obligated DSR 74227 with supplemental DSR 79385. The Regional Director stated that the damages to the building could have been avoided had the subgrantee performed normal building maintenance by removing accumulated snow prior to the disaster.

Second Appeal
On July 29, 1997, OES forwarded the subgrantee's second appeal dated April 9, 1997. The subgrantee's second appeal is based on two primary issues. First, the subgrantee claims that they were unaware of the limited snow load of the structure until May 1995. Second, the subgrantee claims that the building has supported much greater loads in past years and there was no indication that snow removal was warranted. The subgrantee argued that the first appeal response was flawed in its suggestion that the subgrantee should have known about the limited snow load of the roof, and requested that FEMA consider the proposal presented in the first appeal again, i.e., replacement of the building to meet current codes. Further, the subgrantee requested that the replacement building be relocated out of the Airport Clear Zone. The subgrantee stated that the total requested cost of $85,347 for temporary repairs ($3,447) and replacement ($81,900), is $20,774 less than the estimated cost of repair of the entire roof to meet current codes.

DISCUSSION
Repair to the Current Standard
The basic guidelines for FEMA funding is to repair or restore disaster-damaged facilities to pre-disaster conditions. We agree with the contention of the first appeal that it would have been prudent for the subgrantee to have inventoried its structures for those that are susceptible to snow load damages, and either upgrade or maintain the structures with low live load capacities. We also recognized that the heavy snow and subsequent rain had a direct relationship in causing the roof damages; therefore, we have found that the repair of disaster-related damages are eligible for FEMA funding. On June 16, 1992, the Plumas County Board of Supervisors adopted the 1991 version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) through Ordinance 92-785. UBC Section 3403.2 requires that repairs to damaged portions of buildings be made to code requirements for new buildings. The UBC requires the building officials to establish local snow load requirements (UBC Appendix, Chapter 23, Division I), as snow loads may vary widely by location, even within a jurisdiction. The subgrantee established a snow load requirement of 100 PSF for structures within the Chester Area, where the facility is located in (see attached Plumas County Snow Load Chart dated January 5, 1995). However, only the disaster-related damages are eligible for funding. These include the damage to the four trusses, other affected structural members, and the damaged sheathing and shingles. Other portions of the roof that did not fail are not eligible.

Estimates were only obtained for repair of the roof to the predisaster design (for insurance) and the replacement of the entire roof structure (for the subgrantee). No estimate was requested for repair of the damaged section only. Estimates should be obtained for repair of only the damaged section to the 100 PSF requirement. FEMA will review those estimates and prepare a supplemental DSR to re-obligate the eligible costs of the repairs.

Repair versus Replacement
A facility is eligible for replacement when the repair cost is 50% or more of the replacement cost (50% Rule). However, the repair cost considered in the 50% Rule is only to repair the facility to its predisaster design, and does not include the cost of any triggered or mandatory upgrading (e.g., eligible codes and standards) of the facility, even though these upgrades may be eligible for FEMA funding. Further, the replacement cost is the cost to replace the facility to its predisaster design, or as the facility was originally designed and constructed or subsequently modified, to all applicable codes. Therefore, the repair cost would be the estimate provided to Shasta-Cascade Insurance Adjustment Service of $20,448 and does not include the temporary repair cost of $3,447. Two estimated costs were received for replacement facilities, the lower of the two estimates is $81,900 (also excluding temporary repair cost). Therefore, the repair cost is less than 25% of the replacement cost, and the replacement is not eligible.

CONCLUSION
FEMA has determined that only repairs to the damaged portion of the roof are eligible and that such repairs need to meet the subgrantee's requirement for repair of roof structures of 100 PSF live load capacity. The subgrantee should solicit bids and provide information showing bid requests, bid results, and, if applicable, bid award for the eligible work. The Regional Director will determine the eligible cost from the bid estimates and the cost of temporary repairs, less any insurance proceeds.
Last updated