Civic Center Complex

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-0947-DR
Applicant	City of Redlands
Appeal Type	Third
PA ID#	071-59962
PW ID#	84886,06193
Date Signed	1998-04-24T04:00:00

PURPOSE: Respond to third appeal submitted by the City of Redlands for restoration of the Civic Center Complex.

DISCUSSION: Seismic activity associated with FEMA-0947-DR-CA resulted in damage to the City of Redlands' Civic Center Complex (Complex). FEMA prepared a DSR to cover replacement of broken windows in 1992. Approximately two years later, the subgrantee requested $24,600 to cover structural repairs of the walls and six (6) concrete columns in the sub-basement of the complex. In addition, the subgrantee submitted an HMP to upgrade 117 undamaged concrete columns. The HMP and supplemental request were determined ineligible due to regulatory timeframe limitations. Upon review of the first appeal, FEMA determined that the HMP was not cost-effective; however, a supplemental DSR was approved for $24,600. FEMA denied the subgrantee's second appeal for the HMP. In their third appeal, the subgrantee states that codes and standards require seismic upgrades to the 117 undamaged columns. Alternatively, the subgrantee asserts that FEMA should fund the project as an HMP. However, the seismic retrofit project requested by the subgrantee is not required by a code or standard. Therefore, the requested work is not eligible for permanent restoration funding. In addition, the elements (concrete columns) associated with the HMP are undamaged. As such, the seismic retrofit project is not eligible for hazard mitigation funding under Section 406 of the Stafford Act. Therefore, this appeal should be denied.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: Sign the letter denying the appeal

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
The Landers-Big Bear Earthquake caused various damages throughout the City of Redlands in 1992. Consequently, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepared damage survey reports (DSRs) to provide Public Assistance funding to the City of Redlands (subgrantee) for repair of these damages. In particular, DSR 84886 was prepared for $357 in October 1992, to cover replacement of broken windows at the City Hall Redevelopment Offices located at the Civic Center Complex (Complex). The Complex is composed of three main buildings, surface parking, and a full-basement parking garage. The buildings contain approximately 49,000 square feet of floor area. Almost two years after FEMA approved DSR 84886, the subgrantee identified further damages to the Complex, which they believed were attributable to the disaster-event. On May 27, 1994, representatives from the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) and the subgrantee and its consultant (Kenneth King, PE) performed an inspection of the sub-basement and parking garage. The inspectors noted that damages had occurred to the structure due to recent seismic activity, namely the Landers-Big Bear Earthquake.

By letter dated June 15, 1994, OES informed FEMA of the subgrantee's request that a supplemental DSR be prepared to cover a seismic retrofit of the Complex. On August 9, 1994, OES and the subgrantee prepared supplemental DSR 06193 for $24,600, without FEMA's participation, to cover repairs of 400 linear feet (LF) of cracked walls with epoxy injection and six (6) cracked concrete columns. The column repairs were to be performed by installing steel jackets and filling the annular void with polyester grout. This method of repair was chosen, as opposed to epoxy injection, because the inspectors believed that the columns were structurally compromised. The subgrantee and OES transmitted the DSR to FEMA, along with a Hazard Mitigation Proposal (HMP) for $148,000 to perform steel jacket and polyester grout retrofitting of the 117 additional concrete columns that remained undamaged after the disaster.

With an April 12, 1995, letter, the subgrantee informed OES that no action had been taken by FEMA regarding DSR 06193 and the HMP. Subsequently, OES informed the subgrantee that the DSR and HMP were never registered with FEMA, and suggested that the subgrantee resubmit their request. On May 1, 1995, OES forwarded the subgrantee's resubmission of DSR 06193 and the HMP, along with a request for a time extension to perform the scope of work described in DSR 06193. By letter dated June 22, 1995, FEMA determined that DSR 06193 was not eligible because the damage identified by the subgrantee was not reported to FEMA within the 60-day regulatory timeframe in accordance with Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 206.202(d).

First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted their first appeal by letter dated August 4, 1995. In the letter, the subgrantee explained that the area of the Complex where additional damages were identified was not visible to City officials because the building was being leased to Wells Fargo Bank. Further, the subgrantee stated that its access to the damaged area was impeded by the bank's security vault. The subgrantee added that, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.202(d), time limitations may be extended by FEMA when justified and requested in writing. Finally, the subgrantee requested that FEMA approve funding for DSR 06193 and the HMP because they maintained that the HMP was cost-effective, as the seismic retrofit would mitigate the potential collapse of a $4.5 million facility.

By letter dated May 26, 1995, the Regional Director agreed that the subgrantee provided sufficient justification for not reporting the damages within the specified time period. Therefore, the Regional Director approved DSR 06193 for $24,600 to cover repairs of six (6) concrete columns and 400 LF of cracked walls. However, repair of the 117 undamaged columns was determined ineligible for hazard mitigation funding because the work was not considered cost-effective. In addition, repair of the undamaged columns was not required by an applicable code or standard.

Second Appeal
On July 17, 1996, the subgrantee submitted a second appeal to OES. The subgrantee claimed that their codes and standards required the repair of the 117 columns originally proposed in the HMP. The subgrantee's consultant stated that repairing and reinforcing only the columns and walls that show signs of distress would result in the transfer of seismic forces to other parts of the structure. Based upon the estimates and preliminary analysis provided by their consultant, the subgrantee requested $260,336 to perform the seismic retrofit, and $25,000 for inspection, engineering, and design costs. OES transmitted the subgrantee's appeal, and stated that the requested work is eligible for FEMA funding in accordance with 44 CFR 206.226(b).

Upon review of the second appeal, FEMA clarified the applicability of the regulations contained in 44 CFR 206.226(b) to the requested work. This section of the regulations provides that FEMA may fund eligible work in accordance with prevailing codes or standards, when such codes or standards are appropriate to the pre-disaster use of the facility and are in writing and formally adopted by the subgrantee prior to project approval. As such, FEMA stated that the codes and standards referenced by the subgrantee did not require the requested work for two reasons, (1) the standard for seismic retrofitting was not adopted prior to project approval on November 23, 1992, and (2) the referenced codes and standards require simply that the repair work itself be carried out in a code-compliant manner, which leaves the building "no worse off". In addition, FEMA stated that the subgrantee did not provide sufficient documentation to support their assertion that the HMP was cost-effective. Accordingly, the second appeal was denied.

Third Appeal
On August 6, 1997, the subgrantee submitted their third appeal to OES. In their appeal, the subgrantee states that although, "the City leased the main floor and vault areas to the bank., the entire second floor was occupied by the Fire Department Administration at the time of the disaster." Thus, the subgrantee contends that the facility provides "Critical Services" to the City. Also, the subgrantee states that the two buildings adjacent to the main building were occupied by "Essential Government Services", as defined by 44 CFR 206.221(e). The subgrantee agrees that no current applicable code or standard requires seismic retrofit of the facility; however, they contend that the Uniform Building Code, 1994 (UBC) was formally adopted prior to project approval, and that the selected repair method satisfies the requirements of the UBC. The subgrantee continues, "seismic retrofit of all 123 columns would be the most cost-effective manner in which to repair the structure to its pre-disaster condition."

In addition, the subgrantee requests that FEMA recalculate the cost-effectiveness of the HMP. In support of this request, the subgrantee states that they have performed an analysis of the project using FEMA software, which indicates that the work is cost-effective. The subgrantee states that the replacement value of the Complex is $6,856,591, based upon a recent appraisal. OES transmitted the appeal to the Director, supporting the subgrantee's request, but acknowledging that FEMA's approval of HMPs under the Public Assistance Program is discretionary.

DISCUSSION
The subgrantee is requesting funding to reinforce 117 concrete columns (and additional items) under the scope of work approved by DSR 06193. The subgrantee claims that this work is required by the UBC and that the UBC was formally adoptedrak may be eligible for Hazard Mitigation funding because they believe the project is cost-effective.

Applicability of Referenced Codes and Standards to Requested Work
The cost of code-driven upgrades necessary to restore building components or systems damaged as a direct result of a disaster event are considered eligible for Federal reimbursement. However, costs associated with code upgrades for altogether new components or systems not damaged by a disaster are generally not eligible, unless an applicable code or standard specifically requires such work. In this instance, the subgrantee claims that the UBC is applicable to the requested seismic upgrade because it was formally adopted on March 5, 1996, prior to project approval. The subgrantee claims that project approval occurred on March 28, 1996, when supplemental DSR 06193 was approved. Although it is FEMA's policy to consider project approval to occur when the original DSR is approved (November 23, 1992); in this case, FEMA will consider project approval to be the approval date of the supplemental DSR. The basis for this determination is that FEMA granted an extension of regulatory timeframe limitations for the supplemental DSR. However, to be applicable to the requested work, the UBC must satisfy all of the requirements of 44 CFR 206.226(b), as further discussed below.

Although the subgrantee acknowledges that no prevailing code or standard specifically requires seismic retrofit of the undamaged concrete columns, they argue that the UBC requires that the entire structure is in full compliance with codes and standards for new buildings, regardless of the relationship of that work to disaster damages. However, in carrying out its authority to fund repairs of disaster-related damages, FEMA requires that the repair itself must be performed in a code-compliant manner. This does not mean the elements of a structure that are not damaged due to a disaster (in this instance, not damaged at all) must be upgraded to conform to codes and standards. Further, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.226(b)(1), a code or standard must apply to the type of repair or restoration required. In this instance, the UBC does not require seismic retrofit of undamaged elements, regardless of whether the Complex is considered a Critical Facility. Therefore, seismic upgrade of the 117 undamaged concrete columns is not eligible for permanent restoration funding.

Hazard Mitigation Funding under Section 406 of the Stafford Act
Hazard mitigation, as it relates to funding under Section 406 of the Stafford Act, is defined in 44 CFR 206.201(f) as any "cost effective measure, which will reduce the potential for damage to a facility from a disaster event." Further, 44 CFR 206.226(c) indicates that in providing grant assistance, "the Regional Director may require cost effective hazard mitigation measures not required by applicable standards." Also, pursuant to FEMA policy, eligible mitigation measures must be directly part of the reconstruction work or protect and benefit the repaired facility in a cost-effective manner. Accordingly, when the work is not related to disaster damages or when the benefits do not exceed the costs, the HMP is not eligible for Section 406 funding. In this instance, the only damaged elements are the walls and six (6) cracked concrete columns. The 117 undamaged concrete columns are considered separate elements of the structure, such that mitigation of these columns is not related to disaster-damage, or repairs thereof. Because the HMP is for seismic retrofit of non-disaster-damaged elements, FEMA will not provide funding for the HMP.

CONCLUSION
FEMA will not fund repairs of undamaged elements, unless specifically required by a code or standard. The seismic retrofit of 117 undamaged concrete columns (and additional work) is not required by an applicable code or standard. Therefore, the requested work is not eligible for permanent restoration funding. In addition, the elements associated with the subgrantee's HMP are not damaged and do not protect and benefit the repaired elements. As such, the HMP is not eligible for funding under Section 406 of the Stafford Act. Therefore, this appeal is denied.