alert - warning

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

Equipment Replacement

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1603-DR
ApplicantHousing Authority of New Orleans
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#071-U8M7N-00
PW ID#project Worksheet 12483
Date Signed2009-01-05T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1603-DR-LA, Housing Authority of New Orleans, Equipment Replacement, Project Worksheet (PW) 12483

Cross-reference: General Eligibility

Summary: FEMA prepared PW 12483 to capture information regarding the procurement of vehicles and other equipment to replace items damaged by Hurricane Katrina and subsequently determined the PW ineligible for Public Assistance funding because the Applicant did not provide documentation. In addition, the PW stated that based on FEMA Recovery Division Policy 9523.7, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), dated April 14, 2003, FEMA cannot fund permanent work for PHAs eligible for funding under section 9(k) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (the Housing Act). The Applicant filed its first appeal on May 29, 2007, stating that FEMA Recovery Division Policy 9523.7, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), is inconsistent with the law and provided a legal argument regarding FEMA’s authority to fund permanent work for certain PHAs. The Regional Administrator denied the first appeal in a December 31, 2007, letter because the Applicant did not provide information necessary to support its appeal. The Regional Administrator made a distinction between permanent repairs to PHA facilities and replacement of vehicles and equipment, which the Regional Administrator stated may be eligible for reimbursement. The Applicant submitted its second appeal on March 2, 2008, and subsequently requested an oral appeal. Following FEMA’s request for additional information following the oral second appeal, the Applicant provided a predisaster inventory of its vehicles which listed the make, model, year, identification numbers, site and location, and a general post-disaster status. In many cases the information was incomplete or not recorded and could not be used to support the Applicant’s claim. However, the documentation that is complete indicates that $124,728 is eligible for Public Assistance funding.

Issues: Are the vehicles and other equipment the Applicant claims were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina eligible for replacement?
Findings: Yes, for those items for which the Applicant can provide clear documentation.

Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223; 44 CFR §206.226(h)

Appeal Letter

January 5, 2009

Colonel Thomas Kirkpatrick (Retired)
State Coordinating Officer
Governor’s Office of Homeland Security
and Emergency Preparedness
415 North 15th Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Re: Second Appeal–Housing Authority of New Orleans, PA ID 071-U8M7N-00
Equipment Replacement, FEMA-1603-DR-LA, Project Worksheet (PW) 12483

Dear Colonel Kirkpatrick:

This is in response to your letter dated June 4, 2008, which referenced the second appeal of the Housing Authority of New Orleans (Applicant), dated March 7, 2008. The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) decision not to reimburse for the replacement of vehicles and equipment identified in PW 12483.

The Applicant requested reimbursement for costs to replace cars, trucks, front-end loaders, drills, hand trucks, and landscaping equipment that it claimed were damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. FEMA denied the request because FEMA does not fund the permanent repairs to section 9(k) public housing facilities pursuant to Recovery Division Policy 9523.7, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). The Applicant submitted its first appeal on May 29, 2007. The Applicant stated that FEMA’s interpretation of the above policy is inconsistent with the law and argued that FEMA can fund permanent work for certain PHAs. On September 26, 2007, Mr. James Stark, Director of the Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office, requested additional information from the Applicant to support its appeal, including the pre-disaster inventory of equipment, description of damages and location of damaged equipment, and copies of invoices for purchased equipment. The Applicant did not provide the requested information. Therefore, in a letter dated December 31, 2007, the Regional Administrator denied the first appeal because the Applicant did not provide information necessary to support its appeal. The Regional
Administrator made a distinction between permanent repairs that are not eligible for FEMA assistance based on Recovery Division Policy 9523.7, and replacement of vehicles and equipment, which he stated may be eligible for reimbursement.

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on March 2, 2008, and subsequently requested an opportunity to present the second appeal orally to FEMA. FEMA’s Public Assistance Division Director and staff met with representatives of the Applicant on August 5, 2008, in
Washington, D.C., to discuss the appeal. In its oral appeal, the Applicant focused on the issue of whether FEMA has the authority to fund permanent repairs of PHA facilities. During the August 5, 2008, meeting and in communication on August 6, 2008, with the State’s appeals manager and Applicant’s Authorized Representative, FEMA requested information regarding the vehicles and other equipment that was damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.
The Applicant requested reimbursement for cars, trucks, front-end loaders, as well as other equipment and tools such as drills, hand trucks, and landscaping equipment (mowers, blowers, etc.). The Applicant previously provided some invoices and purchase orders to support its claim. The invoices totaled $66,297 and the purchase order requests totaled $742,582. The total amount claimed was $808,879. Based on FEMA’s request for additional information following the August 5, 2008, meeting, the Applicant provided a pre-disaster inventory of its cars and trucks which listed the make, model, year, identification numbers, site and location. In addition, it provided a status that was generally “Flooded” or “OK.” In many cases the information was incomplete or not recorded and could not be used to support the Applicant’s claim. The Applicant did not provide any information about its tools and other equipment.
I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and have determined that the Applicant is eligible to receive $124,728 to replace the 18 vehicles identified in the enclosed table. Therefore, I am partially approving the appeal. By copy of this letter, I am requesting that the Regional Administrator take appropriate action to implement my decision, pursuant to guidance provided by James W. Stark in a memorandum dated March 7, 2008, regarding formulating improved projects for the replacement of equipment.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206.
Sincerely,
/s/
Carlos J. Castillo
Assistant Administrator
Disaster Assistance Directorate

Enclosure

cc: William Peterson
Regional Administrator
FEMA Region VI