Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 081-71000-00; City of Stroud
PW ID# 32; Time Limitations
Citation: FEMA-12465-DR-OK; City of Stroud, Project Worksheet (PW) 32
Cross-reference: Time Limitations
Summary: A tornado struck the City of Stroud (City) on May 9, 2003. As a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared PW 32 on
June 9, 2003, for $0 to repair damaged elements of a maintenance building. FEMAs estimate for repairs was $75,464. However, the City had insurance coverage for this work less a deductible of $1,000, which FEMA covered on PW 28. The City elected to demolish this building and erect a new, slightly larger structure, at the same location that would comply with current codes and standards without notifying FEMA or the Oklahoma Department of Emergency Management (OEM). The cost of the new 5,004 square foot building was $226,945, equating to a replacement cost of $181,645 for the original sized building. Dividing FEMAs estimate for repairs by the replacement cost of the original sized building yields a percentage of 41.5%, thus, replacement of the building does not qualify for reimbursement. On February 17, 2004, the City requested additional funding for constructing the building to code. OEM denied the Citys request on May 11, 2004, because the insurance coverage was greater than the funding that FEMA would authorize for an improved project and the request was not submitted within the sixty day timeframe allowed for identifying damages. The City submitted its first appeal on July 2, 2004, claiming that FEMAs estimate for repairs was too low and that its insurance estimate ($157,629) for repairs exceeds 50% of the insured value ($189,200). Also, it stated that negotiations with its insurance company delayed its ability to provide notice of additional costs sooner. The FEMA Region VI Acting Director denied the appeal on January 7, 2005, because the insurance proceeds were sufficient to cover the estimated cost to repair damages from the disaster, which did not exceed 50% of the replacement cost. Also, the elements requested for upgrade were not directly impacted by the event and the City did not meet the sixty day appeal deadline. The City submitted its second appeal on November 9, 2004, requesting reconsideration of FEMAs determination. OEM does not support the Citys appeal for $31,795.
Issues: Did the City comply with the sixty day timeframe to identify additional damages?
Findings: No. The Citys first substantive meeting was in May 2003, but it did not seek additional funding until February 2004, seven months past the deadline.
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.202(d)(ii)