Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 121-UJIIS-00; Erwinville Fire Department Sub District 5
PW ID# 4837; Training Hall
Conclusion: The Erwinville Fire Department Sub District 5 (Applicant) failed to demonstrate the eligible building repair cost exceeds 50 percent of the building replacement cost. Therefore, the funding for the building replacement is not eligible under the Public Assistance program.
In August 2008, Hurricane Gustav caused damage to the metal roof and interior of the Erwinville Fire Department Sub District 5’s (Applicant) training hall facility. FEMA prepared Project Worksheet (PW) 4837 for $13,329 for the repair of the facility. The Applicant submitted a request for additional funding for the replacement of the facility claiming that the scope of work in PW 4837 did not include the repair of all disaster damage. FEMA denied the Applicant’s request because the Applicant demolished the facility and did not provide documentation to support the amount of damage claimed. In the first appeal, the Applicant asserted that FEMA did not include the repair of all disaster damage and that FEMA personnel stated the training hall qualified for replacement. The FEMA Region VI Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s first appeal because the cost estimate of the repair of the documented damage was less than 50 percent of the replacement cost. In the second appeal, the Applicant reiterates its position that Hurricane Gustav damaged its facility beyond repair. In addition, the Applicant asserts that the facility presented an “attractive nuisance” and was demolished for safety reasons and to reduce the Applicant’s liability.
- 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(f)
- 44 C.F.R. § 206.225
- PA Guide, at 33
- 44 C.F.R. § 206.226(f) states that a facility is considered repairable when disaster damages do not exceed 50 percent of the cost of replacing a facility to its predisaster condition, and it is feasible to repair the facility so that it can perform the function for which it was being used as well as it did immediately prior to the disaster.
- The repair cost is 25 percent of the replacement cost and does not meet the 50 percent requirement.
- 44 C.F.R. §206.225 states that emergency protective measures to save lives, to protect public health and safety, and to protect improved property are eligible if the measures eliminate or lessen immediate threats and are cost effective.
- Here, the Applicant did not provide documentation to support that the facility posed an immediate threat to the general public.