Appeal Summary | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Summary
PA ID# 037-91183; William S. Hart Union High School District
DSR ID# 45277/88157/03384/68437 ; Tennis Court Repair
Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; William S. Hart Union High School District
Reference: Earthquake related damages; restoration to pre-disaster function
Summary: Saugus High School, within the William S. Hart Union High School District, has four side-by-side tennis courts constructed in 1976. DSR 45277 was prepared for an architectural and engineering study ($5,280). During the review process it was determined that funding of the study would not be cost effective and that a repair DSR should be prepared. A second inspection in November 1995 resulted in the approval of DSR 88157 for $9,270 to fund grouting of the earthquake caused cracks and restriping of the tennis court surface. The subgrantee non-concurred with DSR 88157. In a January 1996 letter the subgrantee requested hazard mitigation funding to replace the defective fill under the tennis court slab. A July 1996 third inspection team reassessed the earthquake damages and appropriate repairs and evaluated the request for hazard mitigation funding, but found the hazard mitigation funding not to be cost-effective. As a result, DSR 03384 was approved ($45,276) to inject epoxy grout into the cracks and resurface and restripe the tennis courts (less the eligible work funded by DSR 88157). In June 1996, the subgrantee first appealed the determination to deny funding for the replacement of the tennis courts stating that the repairs made eligible by DSRs 88157 and 03384 misrepresent the actual earthquake caused damages and do not restore the tennis courts to their pre-disaster condition. The subgrantee requested the restoration of the tennis courts by removal and replacement. FEMA denied the appeal in February 1997 stating that epoxy injection of the cracks and resurfacing of the tennis courts will result in a facility with the same size, capacity, and function as it had immediately prior to the disaster. Further, the repair cost ($56,516) is 39% of the replacement cost ($145,310), therefore, replacement is not eligible. With a March 9, 1998, letter, OES transmitted the subgrantee's second appeal which is based on the opinion of an engineering firm that such a repair is "neither cost effective . nor good engineering practice to repair the slab because of the high likelihood of the repair failing within a relatively short period of time."
Issues: 1) Does the approved repair restore the tennis courts to their pre-disaster function?
Findings: 1) Yes. Although the cracks in the tennis courts may continue to enlarge and expand, as they had prior to the disaster, the pre-disaster function of the tennis courts, as it was used with repaired cracks, will be restored with the epoxy cement.
Rationale: 1) 44 CFR 206.226(d)(1).