Emergency Measures

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1046-DR
ApplicantSanta Barbara County
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#083-00000
PW ID#91728
Date Signed1997-12-22T05:00:00
Citation: Appeal Brief; Second Appeal; Santa Barbara County; FEMA-1046-DR-CA;
PA 083-00000
Cross-
Reference: DSR 91728; Emergency Measures

Summary: Following the March 10, 1995, storm in Santa Barbara County (County), California, FEMA prepared DSR 91728 for $21,627 for emergency response efforts, including photographic expenses, meals and lodging, telephones, telephone services, mapping services, and equipment repairs. Upon review, FEMA determined each of the expenses to be ineligible because the appeal lacked sufficient documentation to support the eligibility of these costs. On October 18, 1995, the County submitted a letter of non-concurrence and supporting documentation. On August 5, 1996, the State forwarded the first appeal. The basis of this appeal was that the above items and services were necessary during emergency response operations. On November 12, 1996, the Regional Director denied the first appeal, based on a lack of adequate documentation to support the eligibility of each of the items, including: meals and lodging (receipts or documentation of a County policy were not provided); cellular telephones and services (the useful life of the equipment extends beyond the emergency period); repair cost of a crane beam damaged during the storm cleanup (a component of force account equipment rates); and mapping services used to assist in planning repair projects (covered under the applicant's statutory allowance.) On February 20, 1997, the State forwarded the second appeal, requesting a total of $12,896 for mapping services, telephone services, crane repair, and meals and lodging. The basis of this appeal is that the items were necessary during emergency operations responding to the disaster. The appeal is supported by a considerable amount of documentation, including the County's meal and lodging policy and receipts, and a spreadsheet estimation of disaster-related cellular phone expenses.

Issue: 1. Are the meals and lodgings eligible expenses? 2. Are the cellular phone services eligible expenses? 3. Is the crane repair an eligible expense? 4. Are the mapping services eligible expenses?

Findings: 1. Yes. The applicant's meals and lodging policy allows for reimbursement, however receipts for only $1,151 were provided. 2. Yes. The cellular phone services were associated with emergency response activities, were within the incident period, and were pro-rated to include only disaster-related calls. 3. No. No documentation was provided to substantiate crane repair costs. 4. No. Mapping services for project reconstruction are of a planning nature and are covered by statutory administrative allowance.

Rationale: To be an eligible expense, an item of work must be required as the result of a major disaster event, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.223. Therefore, the crane repair and mapping services are not eligible, and the meals and lodging and phone services are eligible.



Appeal Letter

December 22, 1997


Mr. Gilbert Najera
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Third Floor
Pasadena, California 91103

Dear Mr. Najera:

This is in response to your letter dated February 20, 1997, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). With that letter, you forwarded a second appeal of damage survey report (DSR) 91728 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA on behalf of Santa Barbara County (County), requesting FEMA to reimburse the County $12,896 for expenses associated with emergency response operations.

FEMA prepared DSR 91728 to cover emergency measure expenses, including photographic charges, meals, lodging, and telephone expenses, telephone service, mapping services, and equipment repair. Upon review, FEMA found the items to be ineligible and reduced the DSR to $0, due to a lack of adequate documentation. On August 5, 1996, the State forwarded the first appeal. The basis of this appeal was that the items were necessary as a result of emergency operations responding to the disaster, and should be eligible for reimbursement. The County agreed with the ineligibility of the photographic expenses and the cost of repairing the loader tire. On November 12, 1996, the Regional Director denied the first appeal due to a lack of adequate documentation to support the eligibility of each of the items, pursuant to Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 206.206.

The second appeal was submitted by the State on February 20, 1997. In this appeal, the County is requesting a total of $12,896 for emergency measure expenses, including $1,451 for meals and lodging, $6,642 for telephone services, $3,723 for repair of a crane beam, and for $1,080 for mapping services. The basis of this appeal is that each of these items and services was required as a result of emergency operations. The County submitted a considerable amount of documentation with the second appeal to demonstrate the eligibility of each of the items. Regarding the $1,451 requested for reimbursement of meals and lodging, the County provided its "expense reimbursement policy" which allows for reimbursement of meals and lodging for County personnel carrying out their official duties. The County also provided labor reports indicating the dates and activities of County personnel during the incident period. The labor reports indicate County personnel were conducting eligible emergency response measures when the meals and lodging were procured. However, the County submitted receipts for meals and lodging totaling $1,151. As such, I am approving the second appeal for meals and lodging for $1,151.

Regarding the cellular phone services, the labor report indicates that the dates of the appealed cellular phone services were associated with emergency response activities. Further, the County has provided an "emergency communication spreadsheet" which established the cellular phone bill request to include only service within the incident period. In the spreadsheet, the County has reduced the cellular phone bill to account for disaster-related calls only. The reduction was based upon a three-month average billing cycle. Therefore, I am approving the second appeal for $6,642 for cellular phone services.

With regards to the mapping services, the County argues that the mapping services were necessary to plan project reconstruction and that these services were not part of the statutory administrative allowance to request, obtain, and administer disaster assistance. However, no documentation was provided to establish the specific details of the work performed as "project reconstruction." Mapping services are considered a planning tool and are covered by the statutory allowance. Therefore, I am denying this portion of the second appeal.

The final issue is in regards to repair of the damaged crane beam. The County argues that the crane was damaged during emergency debris removal. The county has not provided documentation, such as invoices, to support the eligibility of the crane repair expenses. Therefore, I am denying this portion of the second appeal, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206 (a), which states that appeals shall contain documented justification to support the subgrantee's position. I have asked the Regional Director to take appropriate action to implement this determination.

Please inform the applicant of my determination. The applicant may submit a third appeal to the Director of FEMA. The appeal must be submitted through your office and the Regional Director within 60 days of receipt of this determination.

Sincerely,


/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate

cc: Ray Williams
Acting Regional Director
Region IX
Last updated