Ineligible Damage
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-1404-DR-NY; City of Lackawanna; PWs 229, 230, 231, 232, and 233
Cross-reference: Ineligible Damage
Summary: The City of Lackawanna was affected by snowstorms in late December 2001, and declared for Public Assistance on March 1, 2002. In the haste to remove the seven feet of snow with heavy equipment during the initial 48-hour snow emergency period, the City claimed that curbs, sidewalks and driveway aprons were damaged. At the Kickoff meeting in early April 2001, the City indicated it would prepare its own PWs. On May 7, 2002, nearly two months later, the City requested that FEMA prepare the PWs. FEMA conducted four site inspections and used independent inspectors to ensure that no eligible damages were missed. City representatives, the Citys Contractor, and the Contractors Consultant were present at most of the meetings and inspections that took place. The Mayor continually rejected the Project Worksheets stating that not all the eligible damage was documented. On May 23, 2002, the Consultant suggested that City and the Contractor would take pictures and measurements and submit them to the State no later than May 28, 2002 (which were never received). Meetings continued into the latter part of June among FEMA, the State, the City, the Contractor, and the Consultant. The final PWs were prepared on July 8, 2002. The City of Lackawanna appealed a total of $837,151, in October 2002. The City questions FEMAs inspections, and policy interpretation. In a letter dated December 16, 2002, FEMA denied the first appeal stating that the City did not prove the eligibility of any additional damages. FEMA noted that the damage was in part due to pre-existing conditions from lack of maintenance and the contract went beyond reasonable expectations of eligible damage work. The City submitted a second appeal on March 12, 2003.
Issues: Is damage to curbs, sidewalks, and driveway aprons claimed in the second appeal the result of emergency work during the disaster recovery?
Findings: The City has not submitted adequate documentation to determine if the appealed damage was pre-existing, the result of the disaster, or occurred after the disaster and related snow removal activities were completed.
Rationale: 44 CFR § 206.223 (a)(1).
On May 7, 2002, nearly two months after the Kickoff Meeting, the Mayor requested that FEMA prepare the PWs. He stated that the City could not figure out what FEMA wanted regarding the curbs, sidewalks and driveway aprons. FEMA recommended that another site inspection be performed to examine and agree on each item and measurement. The State, Mayor, and the Citys Emergency Manager consented to this arrangement.
The next day the State, the City Emergency Manager, and the Contractor surveyed damages for approximately eight hours. Disagreements arose during the inspection and the City dismissed the Contractor from the meeting. Those remaining appeared to agree on all eligible and non-eligible damages for each item inspected. The following day, May 9, 2002, only one hour of inspections was conducted before severe weather began. Several attempts were made after the interruption to contact the City Emergency Manager requesting that she rejoin the inspection. The City Emergency Manager did not respond until May 14, 2002, stating that she would rejoin the inspections on May 16, 2002. At that time, FEMA and the State indicated that they had completed the inspections. The Emergency Manager was surprised that the inspections were completed in the rain and accused the FEMA/State team of conducting only a windshield survey of damages.
On May 15, 2002, FEMA and State representatives held a brief meeting with the City and the Contractor regarding the excessive costs on the invoices. The State showed that the Contractor was billing for sidewalk removal at a high cost of $131 per linear foot, and replacing sidewalks with reinforced concrete that exceeded 3,500 pounds per square inch, a standard that is generally reserved for bridges, not for pedestrian sidewalks.
The Mayor called a meeting with FEMA and the State on May 22, 2002. Also in attendance were the City Emergency Manager, the Contractor, as well as the Contractors Consultant. The Mayor proceeded to reject the existing small PWs and requested that they be combined into one large PW. The Consultant recommended that FEMA, the State and the City attempt to go out and survey the damage again. After much discussion it was determined that FEMA, the State, the City, the Contractor and the Consultant would go out and identify damages that may have been previously missed.
FEMA, the State, the Mayor, the City Emergency Manager, the Contractor, and the Consultant inspected three streets with reported damage on May 23, 2002. No eligible damages were discovered and the Consultant suggested that FEMA and the State could leave and the City and the Contractor would continue to review and document questionable damages. It was agreed that the City would take pictures and measurements and submit them to the State no later than May 28, 2002. The Region received no photo documentation or measurements of the missed damage.
A call was received by the State from the Mayor on May 28, 2002. The Mayor stated that the City had not been treated fairly by FEMA and the State. FEMA and the State agreed to conduct a third inspection of the entire City with a new set of eyes. On May 30, 2002, the Consultant contacted FEMA and wanted to see if we couldnt resolve the problem. The meeting resulted in the Mayor again rejecting the PWs, as well as a discussion of all unresolved issues.
The State sent a new inspector, with experience as a highway construction-engineering inspector for the New York State Department of Transportation, to review the damage. Inspections began again on June 4, 2002, but were suddenly halted when the Mayor demanded that a FEMA representative be present. FEMA faxed a confirmation to the Mayor that the State inspector was authorized to act on behalf of FEMA as a project officer. Shortly thereafter the State inspector urged FEMA to come to the site inspection as soon as possible. At the site, not only were the State and City Emergency Manager present, but also the Contractor, the Consultant, and the Lackawanna Head of Public Works. They were engaged in a heated argument with the State about the damage along one of the streets. It was agreed to include the Consultant in future inspections, and that inspections would resume at 1:30 pm on the same day. At 12:30 pm, the City called and cancelled the inspections for the day and rescheduled them for June 5, 2002. The next day FEMA, the State, the City, the Contractor, and the Consultant met. The City indicated that work was moving along forward, and where there was any disagreement photos were being taken for future review.
Meetings continued into the latter part of June among FEMA, the State, the City, the Contractor, and the Consultant to reach final agreement on eligible damages. The Consultant insisted that all damages, including minor scrapes, should be made eligible. The City also provided invoices for previous work completed, but provided no documentation of the condition of the roads prior to repairs in order to determine eligibility. After FEMA identified several ineligible Federal Aid roads under the authority of the Federal Highway Administration, the meetings ended in an impasse. FEMA and the State prepared PWs 229 through 233, on July 8, 2002.
A final meeting among FEMA, the State, and the City to review the projects was held on September 4, 2002. The State provided all the documentation on funding to the City to date, and copies of all the PWs as well as the status of the work completed and in progress. The Mayor again indicated that he was not satisfied that all the eligible work had been identified. All parties quickly agreed to go back out into the field and review the streets identified by the Mayor. FEMA and the State found the damages to be pre-existing and verified their determination in interviews with the residents on those streets. No additional PWs were written.
First Appeal
The City of Lackawanna appealed a total of $837,151, submitting two packages on October 1, 2002, for PW 229, and on October 20, 2002, for PWs 230, 231, 232, and 233. The State transmitted the appeal to FEMA on November 4, 2002. In the appeal, the City questions FEMAs inspections, interpretation of FEMA policy in determining eligibility, and fairness in considering supporting documentation in appeals.
The City questions the accuracy and completeness of the FEMA/State inspections. It maintains that the inspections were primarily based on windshield observations, and theon of the City. For this reason the City believes that the results do not represent an accurate account of the eligible damages. In support of this claim the City submitted letters written in response to a newspaper notice by Lackawanna residents claiming damage caused by the winter storm in areas where FEMA and the State reported no damages.
The City also claims that FEMA deferred to the States analysis and interpretation of regulations. It questions the concept that minor damage, such as divots created from a front-end loader, is ineligible unless it affects the functionality of the structure. The City contends that FEMAs policies do not address the functional integrity of a facility and states that if these damages are not repaired the freezing and thawing will create additional damages. The City questions why FEMA will not fund the repair of disaster related damage over pre-existing damage.
Project Worksheet 229
Project Worksheet 229 addresses completed repair work for curbs, sidewalks, and driveway aprons throughout the City. Of the original $493,737 in invoices submitted by the contractor, FEMA determined that $85,360 was eligible. The City states that in its own review of the PW the backup documentation contained two handwritten pages with no actual assessments, analysis of eligibility, or locations of damages, pictures, etc. The City concludes that the actual costs were reduced in the PW in order to match FEMAs pre-determined estimates of 40% eligible work.
The City also claims that FEMA disallowed work (with the exception of McKinley Road Bridge) for which the name matched with a Federal road. The City claims that work was not verified because if the inspection team had gone to the site, they would have seen that the work was actually on the portion of local roads that lead up to the intersection with the Federal roads.
In addition, the City submitted invoices for work completed as of the week ending
September 15, 2002. The total appealed costs for PW 299, consisting of the disallowed costs for pre-existing damage, Federal Aid road and new invoices, is $571,052.
Project Worksheets 230, 231, 232 and 233
FEMA approved $699,768 for Project Worksheets 230, 231, 232, and 233, which addressed estimated eligible repair work in the Citys four wards. The City is appealing for an additional $266,099 for previously disallowed and newly identified repair work to curbs, sidewalks, and driveway aprons in Lackawanna not approved by FEMA.
In a letter dated December 16, 2002, FEMA denied the first appeal, stating that the City did not prove the eligibility of any additional damages. FEMA noted that the damage was partly due to pre-existing conditions from lack of maintenance and that the contractor went beyond reasonable expectations in the repair of eligible damage.
Second Appeal
The City submitted a second appeal on March 12, 2003. The State transmitted the appeal to FEMA on April 7, 2003. The appeal is for the same amounts of $571,052 and $266,099, as in the first appeal. In its cover letter, the City indicates that not all of the submitted documentation showing proof of eligible damages was necessarily considered by FEMA in the first appeal determination.
A copy of the previous appeal packages was resubmitted. Also provided with this appeal is a CD-Rom with digital color images showing areas with questioned eligibility, taken in October 2002.
DISCUSSION
Accuracy and Completeness of Inspections
The City waited until the 60-day deadline for submitting PWs was ending to notify FEMA that it would no longer draft its own PWs and to ask FEMA to develop and write the PWs. FEMA and State representatives worked with the City for five months conducting multiple site inspections and working with City officials, the Contractor and Contractors consultant to identify eligible damages. At the Citys request, FEMA conducted multiple inspections and brought in experienced independent inspectors to ensure that eligible damages were identified. While City representatives were not always available, the majority of inspections appear to have been made with City representatives present.
Disaster Related Damage and Eligible Repairs
In accordance with 44 CFR § 206.223 (1), the Public Assistance program assists with damages that are a direct result of disasters and damage to eligible facilities caused during the completion of eligible work. However, this excludes assistance for damage that was pre-existing or occurred after the disaster and related snow removal activities were completed. A review of the supporting documentation has not established that the damage to the curbs, sidewalks, and driveway aprons is a direct result of plowing operations performed during the disaster.
Documentation
A review of the appeal and enclosures revealed no additional information that would change the initial determination of ineligibility for the appealed items.
The City submitted a CD-Rom of color images showing damages dated October 2002.
It was initially agreed that the City would submit photos of areas with disputed damages to FEMA by May 28, 2002. The images appear to contain a mixture of pre-existing and new damages. However, the date on the images shows that they were taken approximately ten months after the disaster occurred. Due to the lapse in time it is not possible to determine if damages can be attributed to the disaster-related snow removal activities or other sources. In addition, black and white photocopies of photos taken in June 2002 with notations of work deemed ineligible by FEMA are of too poor a resolution and are therefore inadequate to make eligibility determinations.
The Contractors invoices for additional work completed that was not previously included in PW 299 lacks adequate supporting documentation as required by 44 CFR §13.20 (a)(6), such as time sheets, etc. In addition, the invoices appear to contain ineligible work. For example, in the PWs, no repair or restoration work was authorized for the sidewalks along Olcut Street, showing that inspectors had looked at the sidewalks and found no eligible damages. Yet page 2 of the Contractors invoice W/E 6/23 contains 415 square feet of sidewalk repair work along the street. The City has not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the additional work performed at the site was necessitated by disaster-related damages.
The letters from residents of Lackawanna did not describe the scale of damage and were not supported by photos. In addition, none of the addresses or description of damages appear to match the damages at the locations listed in the second appeal.
CONCLUSION
The City of Lackawanna has not demonstrated that the additional costs for the repair of its sidewalks, curbs and driveway aprons is eligible. Accordingly, there is no basis for granting the appeal. The appeal is denied.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1404-DR |
| Applicant | City of Lackawanna |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 029-40189-00 |
| PW ID# | 229, 230, 231, 232 and 233 |
| Date Signed | 2003-12-01T05:00:00 |
Appeal Letter
December 1, 2003
Mr. John A. Agostino
Alternate Governors Authorized Representative
New York State Emergency Management Office
Public Security Building 22, State Campus
Albany, New York 12226-5000
Re: Second Appeal City of Lackawanna, PA ID 029-40189-00, Ineligible Damage, FEMA-1404 DR-NY, Project Worksheets (PWs) 229, 230, 231, 232, and 233
Dear Mr. Agostino:
This letter is in response to your April 7, 2003, letter forwarding the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Lackawanna. The City disputes FEMAs eligibility determination regarding damages to its sidewalks, curbs and driveway aprons. The amount in question is $837,151.
As described in the enclosed appeal analysis, I have determined that the City has not proven that the additional damages to its sidewalks, curbs and driveway aprons are a direct result of emergency work performed during the disaster. Accordingly, I conclude that City is not eligible for additional assistance. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response
cc: Joseph Picciano
Acting Regional Director
Region II
Mr. John A. Agostino
Alternate Governors Authorized Representative
New York State Emergency Management Office
Public Security Building 22, State Campus
Albany, New York 12226-5000
Re: Second Appeal City of Lackawanna, PA ID 029-40189-00, Ineligible Damage, FEMA-1404 DR-NY, Project Worksheets (PWs) 229, 230, 231, 232, and 233
Dear Mr. Agostino:
This letter is in response to your April 7, 2003, letter forwarding the referenced second appeal on behalf of the City of Lackawanna. The City disputes FEMAs eligibility determination regarding damages to its sidewalks, curbs and driveway aprons. The amount in question is $837,151.
As described in the enclosed appeal analysis, I have determined that the City has not proven that the additional damages to its sidewalks, curbs and driveway aprons are a direct result of emergency work performed during the disaster. Accordingly, I conclude that City is not eligible for additional assistance. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.
Please inform the applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response
cc: Joseph Picciano
Acting Regional Director
Region II
Appeal Analysis
A series of intense snowstorms, combined with high winds, battered the City of Lackawanna and Erie County from December 24 through 29, 2001. Erie County received a disaster declaration for Public Assistance on March 1, 2002. During the haste to remove the seven feet of snow using heavy equipment during the initial 48-hour snow emergency period, curbs, sidewalks and driveway aprons were damaged throughout the City of Lackawanna. The following documents the interactions with the City over the course of inspections and development of the Project Worksheets (PWs). The Applicant Briefing took place on January 24, 2002. A Kickoff Meeting was held with the City on March 25, 2002, where the City indicated it would prepare its own PWs. On April 22, 2002, FEMA, the State and the City, along with the Citys Contractor conducted a brief site inspection in order to explain aspects of the Public Assistance program. During the course of the inspection, FEMA and the State identified much of the damage as pre-existing due to lack of maintenance, and discussed with the City what items may be eligible for Public Assistance funding. Following the inspection FEMA sent a letter to the Mayor of Lackawanna noting the local prices for granite and concrete curbs, as well as requesting measurements of the damage items in order to assist in the development of the PWs.On May 7, 2002, nearly two months after the Kickoff Meeting, the Mayor requested that FEMA prepare the PWs. He stated that the City could not figure out what FEMA wanted regarding the curbs, sidewalks and driveway aprons. FEMA recommended that another site inspection be performed to examine and agree on each item and measurement. The State, Mayor, and the Citys Emergency Manager consented to this arrangement.
The next day the State, the City Emergency Manager, and the Contractor surveyed damages for approximately eight hours. Disagreements arose during the inspection and the City dismissed the Contractor from the meeting. Those remaining appeared to agree on all eligible and non-eligible damages for each item inspected. The following day, May 9, 2002, only one hour of inspections was conducted before severe weather began. Several attempts were made after the interruption to contact the City Emergency Manager requesting that she rejoin the inspection. The City Emergency Manager did not respond until May 14, 2002, stating that she would rejoin the inspections on May 16, 2002. At that time, FEMA and the State indicated that they had completed the inspections. The Emergency Manager was surprised that the inspections were completed in the rain and accused the FEMA/State team of conducting only a windshield survey of damages.
On May 15, 2002, FEMA and State representatives held a brief meeting with the City and the Contractor regarding the excessive costs on the invoices. The State showed that the Contractor was billing for sidewalk removal at a high cost of $131 per linear foot, and replacing sidewalks with reinforced concrete that exceeded 3,500 pounds per square inch, a standard that is generally reserved for bridges, not for pedestrian sidewalks.
The Mayor called a meeting with FEMA and the State on May 22, 2002. Also in attendance were the City Emergency Manager, the Contractor, as well as the Contractors Consultant. The Mayor proceeded to reject the existing small PWs and requested that they be combined into one large PW. The Consultant recommended that FEMA, the State and the City attempt to go out and survey the damage again. After much discussion it was determined that FEMA, the State, the City, the Contractor and the Consultant would go out and identify damages that may have been previously missed.
FEMA, the State, the Mayor, the City Emergency Manager, the Contractor, and the Consultant inspected three streets with reported damage on May 23, 2002. No eligible damages were discovered and the Consultant suggested that FEMA and the State could leave and the City and the Contractor would continue to review and document questionable damages. It was agreed that the City would take pictures and measurements and submit them to the State no later than May 28, 2002. The Region received no photo documentation or measurements of the missed damage.
A call was received by the State from the Mayor on May 28, 2002. The Mayor stated that the City had not been treated fairly by FEMA and the State. FEMA and the State agreed to conduct a third inspection of the entire City with a new set of eyes. On May 30, 2002, the Consultant contacted FEMA and wanted to see if we couldnt resolve the problem. The meeting resulted in the Mayor again rejecting the PWs, as well as a discussion of all unresolved issues.
The State sent a new inspector, with experience as a highway construction-engineering inspector for the New York State Department of Transportation, to review the damage. Inspections began again on June 4, 2002, but were suddenly halted when the Mayor demanded that a FEMA representative be present. FEMA faxed a confirmation to the Mayor that the State inspector was authorized to act on behalf of FEMA as a project officer. Shortly thereafter the State inspector urged FEMA to come to the site inspection as soon as possible. At the site, not only were the State and City Emergency Manager present, but also the Contractor, the Consultant, and the Lackawanna Head of Public Works. They were engaged in a heated argument with the State about the damage along one of the streets. It was agreed to include the Consultant in future inspections, and that inspections would resume at 1:30 pm on the same day. At 12:30 pm, the City called and cancelled the inspections for the day and rescheduled them for June 5, 2002. The next day FEMA, the State, the City, the Contractor, and the Consultant met. The City indicated that work was moving along forward, and where there was any disagreement photos were being taken for future review.
Meetings continued into the latter part of June among FEMA, the State, the City, the Contractor, and the Consultant to reach final agreement on eligible damages. The Consultant insisted that all damages, including minor scrapes, should be made eligible. The City also provided invoices for previous work completed, but provided no documentation of the condition of the roads prior to repairs in order to determine eligibility. After FEMA identified several ineligible Federal Aid roads under the authority of the Federal Highway Administration, the meetings ended in an impasse. FEMA and the State prepared PWs 229 through 233, on July 8, 2002.
A final meeting among FEMA, the State, and the City to review the projects was held on September 4, 2002. The State provided all the documentation on funding to the City to date, and copies of all the PWs as well as the status of the work completed and in progress. The Mayor again indicated that he was not satisfied that all the eligible work had been identified. All parties quickly agreed to go back out into the field and review the streets identified by the Mayor. FEMA and the State found the damages to be pre-existing and verified their determination in interviews with the residents on those streets. No additional PWs were written.
First Appeal
The City of Lackawanna appealed a total of $837,151, submitting two packages on October 1, 2002, for PW 229, and on October 20, 2002, for PWs 230, 231, 232, and 233. The State transmitted the appeal to FEMA on November 4, 2002. In the appeal, the City questions FEMAs inspections, interpretation of FEMA policy in determining eligibility, and fairness in considering supporting documentation in appeals.
The City questions the accuracy and completeness of the FEMA/State inspections. It maintains that the inspections were primarily based on windshield observations, and theon of the City. For this reason the City believes that the results do not represent an accurate account of the eligible damages. In support of this claim the City submitted letters written in response to a newspaper notice by Lackawanna residents claiming damage caused by the winter storm in areas where FEMA and the State reported no damages.
The City also claims that FEMA deferred to the States analysis and interpretation of regulations. It questions the concept that minor damage, such as divots created from a front-end loader, is ineligible unless it affects the functionality of the structure. The City contends that FEMAs policies do not address the functional integrity of a facility and states that if these damages are not repaired the freezing and thawing will create additional damages. The City questions why FEMA will not fund the repair of disaster related damage over pre-existing damage.
Project Worksheet 229
Project Worksheet 229 addresses completed repair work for curbs, sidewalks, and driveway aprons throughout the City. Of the original $493,737 in invoices submitted by the contractor, FEMA determined that $85,360 was eligible. The City states that in its own review of the PW the backup documentation contained two handwritten pages with no actual assessments, analysis of eligibility, or locations of damages, pictures, etc. The City concludes that the actual costs were reduced in the PW in order to match FEMAs pre-determined estimates of 40% eligible work.
The City also claims that FEMA disallowed work (with the exception of McKinley Road Bridge) for which the name matched with a Federal road. The City claims that work was not verified because if the inspection team had gone to the site, they would have seen that the work was actually on the portion of local roads that lead up to the intersection with the Federal roads.
In addition, the City submitted invoices for work completed as of the week ending
September 15, 2002. The total appealed costs for PW 299, consisting of the disallowed costs for pre-existing damage, Federal Aid road and new invoices, is $571,052.
Project Worksheets 230, 231, 232 and 233
FEMA approved $699,768 for Project Worksheets 230, 231, 232, and 233, which addressed estimated eligible repair work in the Citys four wards. The City is appealing for an additional $266,099 for previously disallowed and newly identified repair work to curbs, sidewalks, and driveway aprons in Lackawanna not approved by FEMA.
In a letter dated December 16, 2002, FEMA denied the first appeal, stating that the City did not prove the eligibility of any additional damages. FEMA noted that the damage was partly due to pre-existing conditions from lack of maintenance and that the contractor went beyond reasonable expectations in the repair of eligible damage.
Second Appeal
The City submitted a second appeal on March 12, 2003. The State transmitted the appeal to FEMA on April 7, 2003. The appeal is for the same amounts of $571,052 and $266,099, as in the first appeal. In its cover letter, the City indicates that not all of the submitted documentation showing proof of eligible damages was necessarily considered by FEMA in the first appeal determination.
A copy of the previous appeal packages was resubmitted. Also provided with this appeal is a CD-Rom with digital color images showing areas with questioned eligibility, taken in October 2002.
DISCUSSION
Accuracy and Completeness of Inspections
The City waited until the 60-day deadline for submitting PWs was ending to notify FEMA that it would no longer draft its own PWs and to ask FEMA to develop and write the PWs. FEMA and State representatives worked with the City for five months conducting multiple site inspections and working with City officials, the Contractor and Contractors consultant to identify eligible damages. At the Citys request, FEMA conducted multiple inspections and brought in experienced independent inspectors to ensure that eligible damages were identified. While City representatives were not always available, the majority of inspections appear to have been made with City representatives present.
Disaster Related Damage and Eligible Repairs
In accordance with 44 CFR § 206.223 (1), the Public Assistance program assists with damages that are a direct result of disasters and damage to eligible facilities caused during the completion of eligible work. However, this excludes assistance for damage that was pre-existing or occurred after the disaster and related snow removal activities were completed. A review of the supporting documentation has not established that the damage to the curbs, sidewalks, and driveway aprons is a direct result of plowing operations performed during the disaster.
Documentation
A review of the appeal and enclosures revealed no additional information that would change the initial determination of ineligibility for the appealed items.
The City submitted a CD-Rom of color images showing damages dated October 2002.
It was initially agreed that the City would submit photos of areas with disputed damages to FEMA by May 28, 2002. The images appear to contain a mixture of pre-existing and new damages. However, the date on the images shows that they were taken approximately ten months after the disaster occurred. Due to the lapse in time it is not possible to determine if damages can be attributed to the disaster-related snow removal activities or other sources. In addition, black and white photocopies of photos taken in June 2002 with notations of work deemed ineligible by FEMA are of too poor a resolution and are therefore inadequate to make eligibility determinations.
The Contractors invoices for additional work completed that was not previously included in PW 299 lacks adequate supporting documentation as required by 44 CFR §13.20 (a)(6), such as time sheets, etc. In addition, the invoices appear to contain ineligible work. For example, in the PWs, no repair or restoration work was authorized for the sidewalks along Olcut Street, showing that inspectors had looked at the sidewalks and found no eligible damages. Yet page 2 of the Contractors invoice W/E 6/23 contains 415 square feet of sidewalk repair work along the street. The City has not provided sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the additional work performed at the site was necessitated by disaster-related damages.
The letters from residents of Lackawanna did not describe the scale of damage and were not supported by photos. In addition, none of the addresses or description of damages appear to match the damages at the locations listed in the second appeal.
CONCLUSION
The City of Lackawanna has not demonstrated that the additional costs for the repair of its sidewalks, curbs and driveway aprons is eligible. Accordingly, there is no basis for granting the appeal. The appeal is denied.
Last updated