alert - warning

This page has not been translated into العربية. Visit the العربية page for resources in that language.

Evacuation and Shelter Costs

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1786-DR
ApplicantLouisiana Office of Youth Development
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-U6H58-00
PW ID#4777
Date Signed2012-06-04T04:00:00

Citation:         FEMA-1786-DR-LA, Louisiana Office of Youth Development, Evacuation and Shelter Costs, Project Worksheet (PW) 4777

Cross-

Reference:      Emergency Protective Measures, Increased Operating Expenses

Summary:      During the period from August 30 to September 10, 2008, the Louisiana Office of Youth Development (Applicant) evacuated 132 custody youth offenders from the Bridge City Center for Youth, which is operated by the Applicant, and 126 non-custody youth offenders from seven other detention centers and sheltered them at four receiving facilities.  FEMA approved $10,795 in materials used during the transport of the youth offenders to the receiving facilities, such as shackles, handcuffs, tarps, lights, and batteries, and $9,575 in contract costs for housing employees at nearby facilities during the evacuation.  The Applicant claimed an additional $69,499 for supplies such as food, water, toiletries, and paper goods, as well as vehicle towing and fuel costs, equipment repairs, and other miscellaneous items.  FEMA denied these additional expenses as duplication of other force account equipment PWs and as increased operating expenses.  In the first appeal, the Applicant requested reimbursement in the amount of $33,247.  FEMA denied the appeal, stating that the items were “routine in nature and did not support the scope of work.”

In the second appeal, the Applicant requests reimbursement of $49,910 for food, water, toiletries, paper goods, and other miscellaneous expenses.  The Applicant states that the purchases were not routine in nature and were necessary to support the influx of new offenders at its facilities.  Of the requested amount, $9,156 was previously reimbursed on the original PW that was approved on December 10, 2009.   

Issue:              Are the costs for supplies purchased and used for the care and feeding of youth offenders at the receiving facilities eligible?

Finding:          Yes.  The portion of consumable items related to the evacuation, shelter and care of the 126 non-custody youth offenders is eligible.

Rationale:       44 CFR §206.225(a)(3)(i) Emergency Work, General; FEMA 322, Public Assistance Guide dated June 2007


Appeal Letter

June 4, 2012

Kevin Davis

Director

Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness

7667 Independence Boulevard

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70806

Re:     Second Appeal–Louisiana Office of Youth Development, PA ID 000-U6H58-00, Evacuation and Shelter Costs, FEMA‑1786‑DR‑LA, Project Worksheet (PW) 4777

Dear Mr. Davis:

This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated November 18, 2011, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the Louisiana Office of Youth Development (Applicant).  The Applicant appealed the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) decision to deny funding for materials purchased during the evacuation and housing of youth offenders during Hurricane Gustav.  The Applicant is requesting reimbursement in the amount of $49,910.

Background

In response to Hurricane Gustav, the Applicant evacuated 132 custody youth offenders from the Bridge City Center for Youth (BCCY), which is operated by the Applicant, and 126 non-custody youth offenders from seven other detention centers that were threatened by the hurricane.  The youth offenders were transported to four receiving facilities owned and operated by the Applicant.  The Applicant purchased $10,795 in materials used during the transport of the youth offenders to the receiving facilities, such as shackles, handcuffs, tarps, lights, and batteries.  The Applicant also incurred contract costs of $9,575 for housing essential staff at nearby facilities during the evacuation.  FEMA approved PW 4777 for these supply and contract costs, plus $594 in Direct Administrative Costs, for a total of $20,964.  The Applicant requested an additional $69,499 for food, water, paper goods, toiletries, clothing, linens, equipment repairs, vehicle towing charges and fuel costs.  FEMA denied these expenses stating that the additional supplies constituted increased operating expenses, which are not eligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance (PA) Program.  FEMA removed the fuel costs associated with applicant owned vehicles stating that those costs had been captured on PW 5212 in the force account equipment rates.

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted its first appeal on November 17, 2010, which the State of Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) forwarded to FEMA in a letter dated January 28, 2011.  The Applicant agreed to remove the claim for fuel and associated equipment costs from PW 4777 ($36,252), and requested that FEMA reconsider the eligibility of $33,247 for supplies purchased in support of the evacuation and housing of youth offenders.  In a letter dated June 30, 2011, FEMA denied the appeal stating that the items were “routine in nature and did not support the scope of work.”

Second Appeal

On September 19, 2011, the Applicant submitted a second appeal which requested reimbursement in the amount of $49,910 for all supplies purchased as part of emergency protective measures under PW 4777.  The Applicant contends that the purchases were not routine in nature and were necessary to provide a safe environment and support the influx of new offenders to its facilities.  In support of the appeal, the Applicant submitted a summary spreadsheet titled “Force Account Material Summary Record” and itemized invoices for each line item in the spreadsheet.

Discussion

Pursuant to Title 44 Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) §206.225, Emergency Work, in order to be eligible for assistance, emergency protective measures must eliminate or lessen immediate threats to lives, public health or safety.  The evacuation, transport, and housing of the resident youth offender population from the various detention centers to safer facilities meet these eligibility criteria.  According to the Public Assistance Guide, FEMA 322 dated June 2007, the costs of operating a facility or providing a service may increase due to or after a disaster; however, these costs are typically not eligible.  Examples of ineligible costs are “[…] increased costs for care and feeding of prisoners and people in residential facilities (schools, nursing homes, etc.).”  The 132 youth offenders who were evacuated from the BCCY fall into this category, as they were already under the care of the Applicant at the time of the disaster.  Costs incurred for the care and feeding of these youth offenders at the receiving facilities are considered increased operating expenses and not eligible for reimbursement.  However, the appeal identified an additional 126 juveniles (48.8 percent of the total evacuee population of 258) as non-custody juveniles from parish detention centers not part of the Applicant’s normal resident population.  Expenses incurred for the evacuation and sheltering of this group of 126 youth offenders during the eligible evacuation period (August 30 to September 10, 2008) are reimbursable as emergency protective measures.

The Applicant’s Force Account Material Summary Record included charges for vehicle repair in advance of the storm, repair of a fire alarm, items purchased outside the evacuation period, items considered to be outside the scope of work (carpet cleaning, photos, and towing), and items that had been previously reimbursed on the original PW.  These costs are not eligible for reimbursement or additional funding.

FEMA has reviewed the summary and noted the eligible and ineligible items on the attached spreadsheet.  The eligibility determination is summarized below: 

 

Item

Ineligible

Eligible

Previously reimbursed on the original PW 

 

$9,156

Ineligible for reimbursement

$30,013

 

Food, paper goods and toiletries

 

 

 

Increased operating costs (51%) - ineligible

$5,496

 

 

Emergency protective measures (49%) - eligible

 

$5,246

Subtotals

$35,508

$14,402

Total

$49,910

 

Conclusion

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Applicant’s appeal should be granted in part.  The costs related to the Applicant’s normal resident population and the costs that are outside the approved scope of work are ineligible, as are the duplicative costs that were previously reimbursed on PW 4777.  However, the remaining portion of requested costs related to the evacuation and care of the 126 non-custody youth offenders is eligible.  Accordingly, I am partially granting the second appeal for an additional $5,246 under PW 4777.  By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement this determination.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Deputy Associate Administrator

Office of Response and Recovery

Enclosure

cc:    Tony Robinson

        Acting Regional Administrator

        FEMA Region VI