alert - warning

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

Overtime Cost for Exempt Employees

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1545-DR
ApplicantCity of Coral Gables
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#086-14250-00
PW ID#5509
Date Signed2007-11-29T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1545-DR-FL; City of Coral Gables, FL

Cross-reference: Overtime, Exempt employees

Summary: The City of Coral Gables (Applicant) requested reimbursement for overtime costs for exempt employees who performed eligible emergency work. The Applicant stated that it paid the employees in accordance with it pay policy, Rule 23 – City-Wide Emergencies. FEMA denied the City’s request because the policy authorized overtime at the discretion of the City Manager. Therefore, it did not comply with OMB Circular A-87, which requires costs to apply uniformly to Federal and non-federal activities. The Regional Director agreed with this determination on first appeal.

Issues: Are overtime costs for exempt employees eligible?

Findings: No.

Rationale: OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments; Recovery Policy 9525.7, Labor Costs – Emergency Work.

Appeal Letter

November 29, 2007

W. Craig Fugate
Director
Florida Division of Emergency Management
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100

Re: Second Appeal – City of Coral Gables, PA ID 086-14250-00,
Overtime Costs for Exempt Employees, FEMA-1545-DR-FL, Project Worksheet 5509

Dear Mr. Fugate:

This is in response to your letter dated March 22, 2007, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Coral Gables (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s decision to deny the Applicant’s request for reimbursement for overtime costs for exempt employees. The amount in dispute is $10,298.

The Applicant’s exempt employees performed eligible emergency work in response to Hurricane Charley. The Applicant requested reimbursement for overtime costs paid to exempt employees in accordance with the Applicant’s pay policy, Rule 23 – City-Wide Emergencies, which states in pertinent part that “City employees at the direction of the City Manager or designee may be compensated …as determined in the sole discretion of the City Manager.” FEMA denied the Applicant’s request because it determined that the Applicant’s pay policy did not meet the intent of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments, Attachment A, paragraph C.1.e. This provision states that costs must “Be consistent with policies, regulations, and procedures that apply uniformly to both Federal awards and other activities of the governmental unit.” In particular, the Applicant’s policy was discretionary and did not apply uniformly to Federal and non-Federal activities.
The Regional Administrator sustained this determination in the first appeal letter dated November 6, 2006.

We have reviewed all information submitted with the appeal and determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision on the first appeal is consistent with program regulations and policies. Therefore, I am denying the second appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my determination. My determination is the final decision in this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.

Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

cc: Major P. May
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region IV