Application Procedures

Appeal Brief

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

During the incident period of February 11-21, 2021, Texas experienced severe winter storms. The City of Glenn Heights (Applicant) submitted a Request for Public Assistance (RPA). The Recovery Scoping Meeting (RSM) occurred on August 3, 2021, making the 60-day deadline for the Applicant’s submission of disaster-related damages to FEMA October 2, 2021.[1] On December 17 and 23, 2021, FEMA emailed the Applicant to inform it that the time to submit projects had expired and advised the Applicant to either request a late Damage Inventory (DI) or withdraw the RPA. On February 17, 2022, the Applicant requested that FEMA approve a 60-day extension to submit a late DI request due to extenuating circumstances, including staff turnover, sick leave for staff due to COVID-19, and the ongoing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Applicant stated that it anticipated damages would be uploaded to FEMA’s grants management system within 30 days. FEMA denied the request for a late DI submission, noting that the deadline for the DI was October 2, 2021, and finding the Applicant had not demonstrated an extenuating circumstance that would have prevented it from timely identifying damages. The Applicant received notification of FEMA’s determination on May 6, 2022.

First Appeal

The Applicant appealed FEMA’s determination in a letter dated July 1, 2022. The Applicant reiterated arguments previously raised, as well as stating that it lost key staff members who had direct knowledge of the FEMA grant submission process and required deadlines. The Applicant requested $147,104.86 for costs associated with emergency work, such as staffing and operating an Emergency Operations Center and staffing a warming shelter. The Texas Division of Emergency Management (Recipient) forwarded the Applicant’s appeal on July 11, 2022 with its support.

The FEMA Region 6 Regional Administrator issued a first appeal decision on October 12, 2022, denying the Applicant’s appeal. FEMA found that the Applicant did not provide documentation which would allow FEMA to validate and quantify the reported damage or the claimed emergency protective measures until 11 months after the RSM. FEMA found that the circumstances presented by the Applicant did not constitute extenuating circumstances beyond its or the Recipient’s control that would justify an extension to the deadline. FEMA therefore denied the appeal.

Second Appeal

The Applicant filed its second appeal in a letter dated December 21, 2022.[2] The Applicant reiterates arguments made on first appeal. The Recipient forwarded the appeal, with its support, in a letter dated January 3, 2023.

Discussion

Applicants have 60 days from the date of the first substantive meeting with FEMA, the RSM, to identify and report all disaster-related damage.[3] FEMA may extend the deadline for identifying and reporting damage if the recipient or the applicant submits a request, in writing, with justification based on extenuating circumstances beyond the recipient’s or applicant’s control.[4] An appeal must contain documented justification supporting the appellant's position.[5]

The Applicant’s deadline to identify and report damages was October 2, 2021, 60 days after the RSM/first substantive meeting.  On February 17, 2022, 198 days after the RSM, the Applicant requested permission to submit late damages. The Applicant acknowledged that its request was untimely.[6] The reasons cited by the Applicant in its second appeal to justify the untimely submission include “turnover in its emergency management team, extended sick leave for several employees, [and] unforeseeable issues due to COVID-19.”[7] However, these general descriptions do not provide enough detail to demonstrate they constitute extenuating circumstances beyond the Applicant’s control, for instance, that the Applicant had insufficient resources to timely submit the identification of damages due to COVID-19 related issues.  Therefore, neither the Applicant nor Recipient demonstrated the existence of extenuating circumstances that were beyond their control to justify the delay.[8]

Conclusion

Neither the Applicant nor the Recipient have demonstrated extenuating circumstances beyond either’s control to justify the untimely identification and reporting of damages. Therefore, this appeal is denied.