alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.

Building Safety Inspections

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

Disaster1763-DR-IA
ApplicantCity of Cedar Rapids
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#113-12000-00
PW ID#4675
Date Signed2013-02-13T00:00:00

Citation:  FEMA-1763-DR-IA; City of Cedar Rapids PW 4675

Cross-  
Reference:
  Emergency Protective Measures – Building Safety Inspections

Summary: On May 25, 2008, severe storms and flooding caused damage to the City of Cedar Rapids (Applicant).  The Applicant’s contractor conducted inspections of homes to determine if the structure was safe to enter for demolition, repairs, re-inspections and re-assess the structures during progress inspections.  FEMA prepared PW 4675 in the amount of $978,621 to document the cost of demolition and emergency building inspections and deemed $530,192 to be ineligible. 

The applicant submitted its first appeal on February 7, 2011, and provided additional documentation from the contractor.  FEMA partially approved the appeal on August 10, 2011, for an additional $31,572 in eligible demolition and safety inspection costs.  In addition, the appeal noted that final funding would be based on actual costs and supporting documentation provided at the close out of the grant.  

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on October 21, 2011, requesting funding in the amount of $498,620.  The applicant reiterates its argument that the inspection work performed by the contractor was for work related to the flood that posed an immediate threat to life, public safety and health.

Issue:  Are the building inspections performed by the Applicant eligible emergency protective measure costs?

Finding:  No.

Rationale: Disaster Assistance Policy 9523.2 Eligibility of Building Safety Inspections Supporting Emergency Work dated January 28, 2008

Appeal Letter

February 13, 2013

Mark Schouten
Administrator
Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management Division
7105 NW 70th Avenue
Camp Dodge, Bldg W-4
Johnston, Iowa 50131-1824

Re: Second Appeal – City of Cedar Rapids, PA ID 113-12000-00, Building Safety Inspections, FEMA-1763-DR-IA, Project Worksheet (PW) 4675

Dear Mr. Schouten:

This letter is in response to a letter from your office dated December 27, 2011, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Cedar Rapids (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $498,620 for costs associated with building inspections.

Background

In May 2008, severe storms and flooding caused damage throughout the State of Iowa.  The President declared a major disaster (FEMA-1763-DR-IA) on May 27, 2008.  Due to the extensive flooding, the disaster incident period did not close until August 13, 2008.  The Applicant had multiple facilities inundated with flood water.  The Applicant’s Code Enforcement Division (CED) was overwhelmed by the number of building and structural inspections necessary to protect the health and safety of the inhabitants of the flooded area.  The flood affected 7,198 properties, 5,390 of those were residential.  FEMA prepared PW 4675 to document the Applicant’s claimed cost of $978,621 for demolition and emergency building inspections.  During final review, FEMA determined that $530,192 was ineligible because the inspections were not necessary to address an immediate threat to life and public health and safety in accordance with Disaster Assistance Policy (DAP) 9523.2, Eligibility of Building Safety Inspections Supporting Emergency Work dated January 28, 2008.

First Appeal

The Applicant submitted its first appeal on February 7, 2011, for $530,192 in costs for building inspections on PW 4675 that had been determined to be ineligible.  The Applicant asserted that in order to maintain health and safety in the flood affected areas and maintain normal workload during the summer construction season the CED was forced to hire additional personnel to assist with inspections, customer service, call handling, and management.  Further, the Applicant stated that all of the work completed was related to the disaster, necessary to establish whether damaged structures posed an immediate threat to life or public health and safety, and performed to comply with City codes and standards.  The Applicant provided copies of emergency proclamations by the Mayor, contractor task orders and invoices.  The Regional Administrator partially approved the appeal on August 10, 2011, for an additional $31,572 in eligible demolition and safety inspection costs.  The appeal response noted that final funding would be based on actual costs and supporting documentation provided at the close out of the project.  

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted its second appeal on October 21, 2011, which was forwarded to FEMA on December 27, 2011.  The Applicant is requesting the following:

 

Invoice

Reason for denial

Amount

Contract Task Order 1

Illegible time sheets

$15,060.60

Contract Task Order 2

Illegible travel receipts

     $195.40

Contract Resolution 0575-07-08 Flood Expenses

No immediate threat

$483,364.39

Total

 

$498,620.39

The Applicant explained that IBTS (Contractor) performed disaster-related life-safety inspections and that the work was necessary due to the intensity of the disaster beyond normal inspection and permitting work.  The appeal included a letter from the Contractor documenting the work performed related to each task order and emergency proclamation.  Further the Applicant maintains that all the work related to the flood was defined as an immediate threat to life and public health and safety.

Discussion

On August 1, 2012, FEMA requested additional information related to the nature of the inspections.  Specifically, the cost associated with each type of inspection performed, the purpose of the re-inspections performed, a copy of the Linn County public health declaration, legible timesheets, and travel documents supporting the expenses being requested.  FEMA received the additional information from the Applicant on August 21, 2012. 

The Applicant did not provide information on the cost by type of inspection as requested, therefore, FEMA is unable to determine the specific types of inspections that were done and the cost of those inspections.  In the Contractor’s letter to the City of Cedar Rapids dated June 4, 2009, it states that under Contract Resolution 0575-07-08 Flood-Related Expenses, the Contractor’s staff performed inspections once repair work was completed, progress inspections of homes that had been flood-damaged, and re-inspections following debris removal from the structure to re-assess the structure for life safety.  Based on that information, the inspections are not eligible for funding since they are part of the Applicant’s normal permit and inspection process and are not safety inspections.

Additionally, the Applicant is requesting reimbursement for expenses in Task Orders 1 and 2 that were deemed ineligible due to the submission of some illegible time sheets and date discrepancies.  The Applicant did not provide copies of the timesheets or travel documents as requested, but stated that it will work with FEMA during the close-out process to pull original invoices of the documents that were difficult to read. If applicant is able to provide legible documentation for aforementioned documents at closeout then FEMA may consider eligibility at that time.

Pursuant to DAP 9523.2 Eligibility of Building Safety Inspections Supporting Emergency Work dated January 28, 2008, work must be necessary to address an immediate threat to life, public health and safety, or improved property.  The policy further states, “FEMA can consider the increased demand for building safety inspection services as an eligible emergency protective measure if such inspections are related to the disaster and are necessary to establish if damaged structures pose an immediate threat to life, public health or safety, or improved property”. 

Upon review of the documentation provided by the Applicant, the inspections performed and invoiced under Contract Resolution 0575-07-08 Flood-Related Expenses were related to the reconstruction effort and normal building permit enforcement and go beyond the scope of a safety inspection.  Therefore, these inspections are not eligible emergency protective measures.    

Conclusion

I have reviewed the information submitted with the second appeal and have determined that the Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policy.  Accordingly, I am denying the second appeal.

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/

Deborah Ingram
Assistant Administrator
Recovery Directorate

cc:  Beth Freeman
      Regional Administrator
      FEMA Region VII