alert - warning

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

Request for Public Assistance

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster1603-DR-LA
ApplicantNew Creation Christian Church
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#071-UGADM-00
PW ID#20454
Date Signed2014-08-12T00:00:00

Conclusion: The Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that it has an eligible Private Nonprofit (PNP) facility or legal responsibility for disaster-related repairs to the facility.

Summary Paragraph

The Applicant’s facility sustained over 8 feet of floodwaters during Hurricane Katrina in August 2005.  FEMA provisionally approved the Applicant’s Request for Public Assistance (RPA) in December 2011, based on the Applicant’s claim that it operated a community center, a shelter for the homeless, and a feeding program.  The Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to support its RPA claim, and FEMA obligated PW 20454 for zero-dollars in January 2013.  In its first appeal, the Applicant requested funding without providing adequate supporting documentation.  The Regional Administrator denied the appeal because the Applicant did not demonstrate that its facility was primarily used for eligible PNP activities or that it had legal responsibility for disaster-related repairs to the facility.  In its second appeal, the Applicant again requested FEMA funding and stated that it could not provide any documentation because everything was lost during Hurricane Katrina.  FEMA upheld the Regional Administrator’s determination that the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that it has an eligible PNP facility or legal responsibility for disaster-related repairs to the facility. 

Authorities and Second Appeals

  • 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(a)
  • 44 C.F.R. § 206.222(b)
  • 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(3)
  • RDP 9521.3, Private Nonprofit Facility (PNP) Eligibility (May 23, 2003), at 2.

Headnotes

  • 44 C.F.R. § 206.222(b) specifies that a PNP organization or institution which owns or operates an eligible PNP facility is eligible to apply for Public Assistance (PA).
  • There is insufficient documentation demonstrating that the Applicant owns or operates an eligible facility.  Accordingly, the Applicant is not eligible to apply for PA funding.  
  • 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(3) requires that an item of work must be the legal responsibility of an eligible applicant in order to be eligible for financial assistance.
  • The Applicant did not provide any documentation showing that it owned or leased the facility and has legal responsibility for any disaster-related repairs.  Without legal responsibility, the Applicant is not eligible for financial assistance. 
  • RDP 9521.3, Private Nonprofit Facility (PNP) Eligibility explains that an eligible applicant must meet requirements as listed in 44 C.F.R. § 206.221 – 44 C.F.R. § 206.226 , including the need to own or operate an eligible facility and to be legally responsible for disaster-related repairs.   The policy also states that the facility must be primarily used for one of the services or facilities listed in 44 C.F.R. § 206.221(e).
  • Without meeting the requirements to own or operate an eligible facility and have legal responsibility for disaster-related repairs, the Applicant is not eligible for PA funding.

Appeal Letter

August 12, 2014

Kevin Davis
Director
Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness
7667 Independence Boulevard
Baton Rouge, LA 70806

Re: Second Appeal – New Creation Christian Church, PA ID 071-UGADM-00, FEMA-1603-DR-LA, Project Worksheet (PW) 20454, Request for Public Assistance – Private Nonprofit

Dear Mr. Davis:

This is in response a letter from your office dated June 10, 2014, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of New Creation Christian Church (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of its Request for Public Assistance as a private nonprofit (PNP) applicant and zero-dollar obligation of PW 20454. 

As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined that the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that it has an eligible PNP facility or legal responsibility for disaster-related repairs to its facility.  Therefore, I am denying this appeal.

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals.

Sincerely,

/s/

William W. Roche
Director
Public Assistance Division

Enclosure

cc: George A. Robinson
      Regional Administrator
      FEMA Region VI

Appeal Analysis

Background

On August 29, 2005, heavy rains and flooding from Hurricane Katrina resulted in extensive damages to the New Creation Christian Church’s (Applicant) two story brick building (Facility).  The Facility also sustained over eight feet of floodwaters for several weeks.  Prior to any opportunity for FEMA’s inspection, the Facility was demolished and its contents were destroyed.

From November 16, 2010 to October 7, 2011, FEMA accepted new Requests for Public Assistance (RPA) from faith-based private nonprofit (PNP) organizations that had not previously applied for Public Assistance (PA) due to extenuating circumstances in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.  The Applicant applied for Public Assistance (PA) under this program.

On December 7, 2011, FEMA provisionally approved the Applicant’s RPA, based on the Applicant’s claim that it operated a food bank facility at the time of the disaster.  During the Kick-Off Meeting on January 19, 2012, the Applicant stated that the Facility housed a church upstairs and a community center downstairs, in addition to a shelter for the homeless and a feeding program. Despite FEMA’s multiple requests for documentation between January and July 2012, the Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to support its facility eligibility claims.

On January 17, 2013, FEMA obligated PW 20454 for zero-dollars.  FEMA’s determination was based on the Applicant not providing sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the Facility was primarily used for eligible PNP purposes or that it had legal responsibility for disaster-related damages to the Facility.

First Appeal

In an undated first appeal letter received by the Grantee on March 21, 2013, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s denial of its RPA and zero-dollar obligation of PW 20454.  On May 20, 2013, the Grantee transmitted the Applicant’s first appeal to the Region, indicating its support of the appeal. 

On March 6, 2014, the FEMA Region VI Regional Administrator (RA) denied the first appeal.  The RA found the Applicant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that it had an eligible facility primarily used for eligible PNP activities at the time of the disaster, and that it was legally responsible for disaster-related repairs to the facility.

Second Appeal

In an undated second appeal letter received by the Grantee on May 21, 2014 and transmitted to FEMA by the Grantee on June 10, 2014, the Applicant again appealed FEMA’s denial of its RPA and zero-dollar obligation of PW 20454.  The Applicant did not make any arguments regarding its PNP eligibility, but claimed that it lost everything, including any documents or pictures, during Hurricane Katrina, and stated that it was not possible to present any supporting documentation of the lost building contents.  The Applicant listed, from memory, 32 lost building content items worth $240,608.00, plus rebuilding cost of $733,000.00, for a total requested funding amount of $973,608.00.

Discussion

Pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.222(b) and § 206.223(a)(3), to be eligible for PA funding, a PNP applicant must own or operate an eligible PNP facility, and it must have legal responsibility for disaster-related damages.[1]  Furthermore, per 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(a), it is the Applicant’s responsibility to provide sufficient documentation to support its appeal.[2]

Eligible PNP facilities are defined in 44 C.F.R. § 206.221(e) and include facilities providing essential governmental type services such as community centers and homeless shelters.[3]  PNP facility eligibility requirements are further clarified in RDP 9521.3, Private Nonprofit Facility (PNP) Eligibility, which provides that a PNP facility must be primarily used for one of the eligible PNP services to be eligible for PA funding.[4]  Primary use is determined by first considering the space that a facility is used for eligible services, whereby over 50 percent of a facility’s space must be dedicated to an eligible purpose.[5]  For mixed-use facilities, primary use is determined by the amount of time that the facility is used for eligible services.[6]

FEMA provisionally approved the Applicant’s RPA based on the claim that it operated a food bank at the time of the disaster.  During the Kick-Off Meeting, the Applicant also claimed that it operated a community center, a homeless shelter, and a feeding program, in addition to a regular church, all within the same building.  Previously submitted documentation consists of letters of support written by church congregants and a summary of activities the Applicant claims to have provided at the Facility. However, this information does not demonstrate that the Facility was primarily used for one of the eligible PNP activities in accordance with requirements outlined in regulation[7] and policy.[8]

Additionally, the Applicant provided a court document dated August 29, 2007, naming the Applicant’s church pastor, Marie Galatas, as the Administrator with legal authority to make any decisions regarding the Facility.  However, legal authority is not synonymous with legal responsibility, and any legal authority granted to the Applicant’s church pastor does not automatically extend to the Applicant.  Even if, arguendo, it could, this court document is dated post-disaster and was not in effect at the time of the disaster. As the RA correctly determined, this document does not establish ownership of the Facility by the Applicant, nor the Applicant’s legal responsibility for disaster-related repairs at the Facility at the time of the disaster.  Pursuant to regulation, any work that is not the legal responsibility of an eligible applicant is not eligible for PA funding.[9]

Moreover, RDP 9521.3 states that “[c]ontents that are the responsibility of an ineligible occupant are not eligible for reimbursement if damaged.”[10]  Without an eligible facility or documentation of legal responsibility for an eligible facility, the Applicant is effectively considered an ineligible occupant of the damaged Facility for the purposes of PA funding.  Accordingly, the Applicant is not eligible to receive PA funding for any contents within the Facility damaged during the disaster.

Conclusion

The Applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate that its Facility was used primarily for eligible PNP activities and that it is legally responsible for disaster-related repairs.  Therefore, the Applicant’s Facility is not eligible for PA funding.  Furthermore, without an eligible facility, any contents therein are also ineligible for PA funding. 


[1] See 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.222(b), 206.223(a)(3) (2005).

[2] See 44 C.F.R. § 206.206(a).

[3] See 44 C.F.R. §206.221(e).

[4] See Recovery Directorate Policy RDP9521.3, Private Nonprofit Facility (PNP) Eligibility, at 2 (May 23, 2003).

[5] See Id. at 3.

[6] See Id.

[7] See 44 C.F.R., supra note 2.

[8] See RDP 9521.3, supra note 3.

[9] See 44 C.F.R. § 206.223(a)(3).

[10] See RDP 9521.3, supra note 4.