Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Back
Second Appeal Letter
PA ID# 000-00834-00; City of Chicago
PW ID# Project Worksheets 7056 and 1494; Duplication of Benefits
May 1, 2008
Mr. David L. Smith
Chief of Disaster Assistance and Preparedness
Illinois Emergency Management Agency
1035 Outer Park Drive
Springfield, Illinois 62701-1109
Re: Second AppealCity of Chicago, PA ID 000-00834-00, Duplication of Benefits
FEMA-3134/3161-EM-IL, Project Worksheets (PW) 7056 and 1494
Dear Mr. Smith:
This is in response to your letter dated October 24, 2006, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Chicago (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) de-obligation of funding in PWs 7056 and 1494 for snow removal at the Applicants OHare and Midway Airports following severe snow storms in January 1999 and December 2000.
The Department of Homeland Securitys Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an audit (DD-16-03) of the Applicants grants and determined that $7,849,565 in snow removal costs was a duplication of benefits based on the Airline Use Agreements between the Applicant and the two airport facilities. The audit concluded that the Airline Use Agreements establish that the airlines are required to pay for net operating and maintenance expenses, including costs for snow removal. FEMA agreed with the finding and notified the Illinois Emergency Management Agency of the determination to de-obligate the funds on February 8, 2005. PW 7056 de-obligated $6,397,236 for FEMA-3134-EM-IL. PW 1494 de-obligated $1,452,330 for FEMA-3161-EM-IL.
The Applicant submitted its first appeal on June 13, 2005. It challenged the findings of the OIG audit and claimed that it did not receive duplicative payment for these snow removal costs from the airlines. The appeal also asserted that it is FEMAs responsibility to pay for these costs. The Regional Director denied the appeal on August 2, 2006, because the agreements did not relieve the airlines of the responsibility to fund snow removal work and because the Applicant failed to provide documentation establishing that a duplication of benefits had not occurred.
The Applicant submitted its second appeal on October 23, 2006. The Applicant failed to provide any additional information to support its claim that it had not received duplicative reimbursement from the airlines. We have reviewed all information submitted with the Applicants second appeal and have determined that the conclusion of the OIGs audit and the Regional Directors decision in the first appeal are correct. The provisions in the Airline Use Agreements establish that the airlines are required to pay for net operating and maintenance expenses, including costs for snow removal. The Applicant failed to provide any additional information to support its claim that it had not received duplicative reimbursement. Further, the OIG audit shows that the Applicant had credited the airlines the amount of the assistance provided by FEMA for the snow removal work, indicating that a duplication of benefits had occurred. For these reasons, this second appeal is denied.
Please inform the Applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR §206.206.
Carlos J. Castillo
Disaster Assistance Directorate
cc: Edward G. Buikema
FEMA Region V