Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 029-40189-00; City of Lackawanna
PW ID# 229, 230, 231, 232 and 233; Ineligible Damage
Citation: FEMA-1404-DR-NY; City of Lackawanna; PWs 229, 230, 231, 232, and 233
Cross-reference: Ineligible Damage
Summary: The City of Lackawanna was affected by snowstorms in late December 2001, and declared for Public Assistance on March 1, 2002. In the haste to remove the seven feet of snow with heavy equipment during the initial 48-hour snow emergency period, the City claimed that curbs, sidewalks and driveway aprons were damaged. At the Kickoff meeting in early April 2001, the City indicated it would prepare its own PWs. On May 7, 2002, nearly two months later, the City requested that FEMA prepare the PWs. FEMA conducted four site inspections and used independent inspectors to ensure that no eligible damages were missed. City representatives, the Citys Contractor, and the Contractors Consultant were present at most of the meetings and inspections that took place. The Mayor continually rejected the Project Worksheets stating that not all the eligible damage was documented. On May 23, 2002, the Consultant suggested that City and the Contractor would take pictures and measurements and submit them to the State no later than May 28, 2002 (which were never received). Meetings continued into the latter part of June among FEMA, the State, the City, the Contractor, and the Consultant. The final PWs were prepared on July 8, 2002. The City of Lackawanna appealed a total of $837,151, in October 2002. The City questions FEMAs inspections, and policy interpretation. In a letter dated December 16, 2002, FEMA denied the first appeal stating that the City did not prove the eligibility of any additional damages. FEMA noted that the damage was in part due to pre-existing conditions from lack of maintenance and the contract went beyond reasonable expectations of eligible damage work. The City submitted a second appeal on March 12, 2003.
Issues: Is damage to curbs, sidewalks, and driveway aprons claimed in the second appeal the result of emergency work during the disaster recovery?
Findings: The City has not submitted adequate documentation to determine if the appealed damage was pre-existing, the result of the disaster, or occurred after the disaster and related snow removal activities were completed.
Rationale: 44 CFR § 206.223 (a)(1).