Citation: FEMA-1981-DR-ND, City of Minot, Road Repairs, Project Worksheets (PWs) 4216, 4217, and 4242
Cross-Reference: General Eligibility
Summary: During the flooding event numerous asphalt roads used as haul roads for the construction of temporary levees in the city of Minot were damaged. FEMA prepared PWs 4216, 4217, and 4242 to fund the disaster-related repairs to the roads at numerous sites. The three PWs documented all damage at all sites claimed by the City of Minot (Applicant) to be flood-related. However, FEMA determined the damage at some sites was minor and cosmetic in nature or was pre-existing. The PWs noted that repairs at these sites were ineligible for funding. FEMA approved PW 4216 for $23,721 to address damages at 22 sites (ineligible repairs at 5 sites), PW 4217 for $29,684 for 23 sites (ineligible repairs at 8 sites), and PW 4242 for $10,169 for 16 sites (ineligible repairs at 5 sites). The Applicant submitted first appeals of the scopes of work approved under PWs 4216, 4217, and 4242. The Applicant claimed that the damage classified as cosmetic by FEMA was gouging caused by heavy equipment using the roads during the flood and would allow moisture to enter the road surface and increase future damage during the freeze-thaw cycle. The Applicant also asserted that some of the damage determined by FEMA to be pre-existing damage did not exist prior to the event and provided its 2010 City Pavement Management Report in support of its assertion. The FEMA Regional Administrator partially granted the Applicant’s first appeal of PW 4217 approving $6,608 in additional funding for repairs at two of the five sites at issue under in first appeal. FEMA determined the damage at the two sites to be disaster-related. The FEMA Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s first appeals of PWs 4216 and 4242. In the three appeal responses, FEMA reiterated the damage referred to as gouging in the appeals was referred to as cosmetic in the PWs. Further, FEMA stated that the 2010 City Pavement Management Report included comments suggesting pre-existing damage at some of the sites. In three separate second appeals, the Applicant reiterates that the damage determined by FEMA to be either cosmetic or pre-existing, is damage to the roadways that occurred as a result of the declared event.
Issue: Has the Applicant demonstrated that the damage to the roads’ surfaces resulted from the declared event?
Rationale: 44 CFR §206.223 General Work Eligibility