Emerson Elementary School
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Citation: Oakland Unified School District, P.A. 001-91006, Emerson Elementary School, FEMA-1203-DR, no DSR written.
Cross-reference: Subject: Disaster related damage, Roof leaks, and El Ni?o storms. FEMA Record: FEMA R.IX log 17343 (no DSR written).
Summary: This appeal was submitted by the Oakland Unified School District on December 27, 2000. The applicant requests reimbursement for the costs of re-roofing and removing mold from the Emerson School, which is claimed to have been caused by the El Ni?o Storms. The amount requested for this loss at the Emerson School is $3,573,375 to cover the cost of replacing the leaky roof and rooftop equipment, and replacing the mold infected walls. No DSR was ever written for this particular damage because (1) the request came much later than the requests for other schools for which DSRs were prepared and it was submitted as a requested amendment known as "Exhibit B" to DSRs #74877 and #00839 for the Arts Academy, and (2) FEMA had determined at the time of the initial request that the school be added, that the damage was not caused by the storm. FEMA had denied the request to date because of a finding that the leaks in the roof had pre-dated the storm, and that there was no evidence, therefore, that the storms had caused the damage.
.
Issues: Does the fact that water, which caused water damage in an eligible facility, originated from storms in a declared disaster provide for eligibility, when the leaks that allowed the water intrusion were not caused by the disaster?
Findings: No. Eligibility must meet the test of direct causation. The declared disaster must be the cause of the damage. Since a roof in normal service is designed to exclude rainwater, then it must be determined that the disaster had caused it to fail in order for the consequential damage to be eligible. In this case, the evidence establishes that the failure of the roof had preceded the disaster, and there is no evidence that the disaster was directly responsible for any of the leaks, or that the mold was the result of water intrusion from any other location but the roof. Thus, the costs to eradicate the mold and to repair the roof are ineligible. In addition, a site investigation and interview revealed that the building was already closed and under re-construction at the time of the declared event, further proving that the disaster had not caused the damage claimed. The "repair" was also reported to actually involve the complete demolition and replacement of all but the foundations and floor slab.
Rationale: Stafford Act, Sect. 406(a)(1); 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1).
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1203-DR |
| Applicant | Oakland Unified School District |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 001-91006 |
| PW ID# | XXXXXX |
| Date Signed | 2001-06-18T04:00:00 |
.
Appeal Letter
June 18, 2001
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023
RE: Second Appeal, Oakland Unified School District, P.A. 001-91006, Emerson Elementary School, FEMA-1203-DR-CA, FEMA Region IX log 17343
Dear Mr. Christian:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 28, 2001 forwarding the Second Appeal of the denial to include the Emerson Elementary School in an "amended projects list (Exhibit B)" for funding to cover damages caused by the El Ni?o Storms. This appeal was submitted by the Oakland Unified School District on December 27, 2000. The applicant requests reimbursement for the costs of re-roofing and removing mold from the school, damage which they attribute to the El Ni?o Storms. The amount requested for this loss at the Emerson School is $3,573,375.
No DSR was ever written for this particular damage because (1) the request came much later than the requests for other schools for which DSRs were prepared and it was submitted as a requested amendment known as "Exhibit B" to DSRs #74877 and #00839 for the Arts Academy, and (2) FEMA had determined at the time of the initial request that the school be added, that the damage was not caused by the storm.
On my review of this appeal, I have been unable to find any new information in the appeal submittal, or at Region IX on which to base a change in eligibility status. On the contrary, an interview of school personnel familiar with the reconstruction, confirmed that the disaster had not caused the damage claimed because the school was apparently closed for repairs because of leaks and mold well before and during the El Ni?o rains.
The applicant's case rests on the finding by SINA Environmental, Inc. that mold was greatly amplified during the time of the storms, leading them to a conclusion that "65% of the damage could be attributed to the excessive rains during the disaster incident period."
Based on this finding, the applicant has submitted for reimbursement 65% of their costs for complete roof replacement, air conditioning rooftop equipment replacement, and replacement of a great deal of the interior walls within the school building. No information has been provided to establish any causal relationship between the storm, and the damage to the roof and rooftop mechanical units where the water damage originated. On the contrary, the record includes extensive evidence that the roof leaks had existed prior to the disaster, and that a new roof was already planned, with construction work begun, when the rains occurred. As explained above, this finding is supported by the testimony by school personnel.
The interior wall damage has been proven to be the consequence of damage to the roof prior to the storm, not the storm itself, and is thus ineligible for FEMA assistance. To be eligible, damage must be directly caused by the disaster. In this case, faults in the original design and construction of the roof, and the failure to repair or replace the leaky roof in time were the cause of the mold. The fact that the storms were larger and more frequent than usual may have led to an additional amount of interior mold than would have otherwise occurred. However, regardless of the extent of the mold, the causal relationship remains the same - namely that the roof had failed prior to the storms, and not because of the storms.
In addition, the mold damage was not reported to FEMA until one year after the disaster event. Without an opportunity to inspect the damage immediately after the event, FEMA was not able to verify the extent of damage caused directly by the disaster. Therefore, I am denying this appeal.
Please inform the applicant of this determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Karen E. Armes
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Mr. D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Post Office Box 419023
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-9023
RE: Second Appeal, Oakland Unified School District, P.A. 001-91006, Emerson Elementary School, FEMA-1203-DR-CA, FEMA Region IX log 17343
Dear Mr. Christian:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 28, 2001 forwarding the Second Appeal of the denial to include the Emerson Elementary School in an "amended projects list (Exhibit B)" for funding to cover damages caused by the El Ni?o Storms. This appeal was submitted by the Oakland Unified School District on December 27, 2000. The applicant requests reimbursement for the costs of re-roofing and removing mold from the school, damage which they attribute to the El Ni?o Storms. The amount requested for this loss at the Emerson School is $3,573,375.
No DSR was ever written for this particular damage because (1) the request came much later than the requests for other schools for which DSRs were prepared and it was submitted as a requested amendment known as "Exhibit B" to DSRs #74877 and #00839 for the Arts Academy, and (2) FEMA had determined at the time of the initial request that the school be added, that the damage was not caused by the storm.
On my review of this appeal, I have been unable to find any new information in the appeal submittal, or at Region IX on which to base a change in eligibility status. On the contrary, an interview of school personnel familiar with the reconstruction, confirmed that the disaster had not caused the damage claimed because the school was apparently closed for repairs because of leaks and mold well before and during the El Ni?o rains.
The applicant's case rests on the finding by SINA Environmental, Inc. that mold was greatly amplified during the time of the storms, leading them to a conclusion that "65% of the damage could be attributed to the excessive rains during the disaster incident period."
Based on this finding, the applicant has submitted for reimbursement 65% of their costs for complete roof replacement, air conditioning rooftop equipment replacement, and replacement of a great deal of the interior walls within the school building. No information has been provided to establish any causal relationship between the storm, and the damage to the roof and rooftop mechanical units where the water damage originated. On the contrary, the record includes extensive evidence that the roof leaks had existed prior to the disaster, and that a new roof was already planned, with construction work begun, when the rains occurred. As explained above, this finding is supported by the testimony by school personnel.
The interior wall damage has been proven to be the consequence of damage to the roof prior to the storm, not the storm itself, and is thus ineligible for FEMA assistance. To be eligible, damage must be directly caused by the disaster. In this case, faults in the original design and construction of the roof, and the failure to repair or replace the leaky roof in time were the cause of the mold. The fact that the storms were larger and more frequent than usual may have led to an additional amount of interior mold than would have otherwise occurred. However, regardless of the extent of the mold, the causal relationship remains the same - namely that the roof had failed prior to the storms, and not because of the storms.
In addition, the mold damage was not reported to FEMA until one year after the disaster event. Without an opportunity to inspect the damage immediately after the event, FEMA was not able to verify the extent of damage caused directly by the disaster. Therefore, I am denying this appeal.
Please inform the applicant of this determination. My decision constitutes the final decision on this matter as set forth in 44 CFR 206.206.
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Karen E. Armes
Acting Regional Director
FEMA Region IX
Last updated