Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 007-19180-00; City of Cranston
PW ID# 577; Replacement of Police Vehicles
Citation: FEMA-1894-DR-RI, City of Cranston, Replacement of Police Vehicles, Project Worksheet (PW) 577
Reference: General Eligibility
Summary: The Applicant sustained the loss of two police vehicles as a result of flooding from severe storms during the period of March 12- through April 12, 2010. The Applicant’s contractor prepared PW 577 for total costs of $57,556 to replace the two damaged vehicles with new vehicles as opposed to vehicles of equivalent age and value. FEMA determined that the police vehicles could be replaced with similar vehicles and allowed the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) value of $16,085 ($7,785 and $8,300) minus a salvage of $176 for each vehicle. FEMA also factored in the cost for replacement of vehicle graphics ($900), used vehicle transportation costs ($1,600), and direct administrative costs ($2,450) into the PW. On August 24, 2010, FEMA obligated PW 577 for costs totaling $20,683.
In its first appeal submitted on September 14, 2010, the Applicant requested that FEMA reinstate the reduction of assistance. The Applicant argued that FEMA’s observations that the vehicles appeared to be undamaged was not relevant to the replacement of the vehicles, that used police vehicles are not generally suitable or reliable for continued law enforcement use, and that FEMA should allow the salvage value for the vehicles as recommended by the Applicant. On December 16, 2010, the Regional Administrator denied the first appeal and reaffirmed FEMA’s initial determination that the Applicant was eligible for used vehicle replacement, which is in accordance with 44 CFR §206.226(h), Restoration of damaged facilities, Equipment and furnishings. The Regional Administrator also concluded that the Applicant did not provide sufficient justification that used vehicles were not suitable or reasonably available, that it was not unreasonable to expect the Applicant to acquire a used police vehicle from out of state, and that FEMA used the total salvage value that was provided by the Applicant.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on February 12, 2011, and reiterates the same position it claimed in the first appeal. The State does not support the appeal.
Issue: Did the Applicant demonstrate that it could not locate suitable and reliable used police vehicles?
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.226(h), Restoration of damaged facilities; DAP9524.10, Replacement of Equipment, Vehicles, and Supplies