Appeal Brief | Appeal Letter | Appeal Analysis | Back
Second Appeal Brief
PA ID# 071-UDVCP-00; Community Care and Restoration Center, Inc.
PW ID# 20404; Facility Eligibility
Conclusion: The Community Care and Restoration Center, Inc. (Applicant) failed to demonstrate its legal responsibility for the facility addressed in PW 20404 and that the facility is primarily used for eligible activities.
Summary Paragraph Authorities Discussed
- 44 CFR §206.223(a)(3) General Work Eligibility.
- 44 CFR 206.221 (e)(7) Definitions
- Recovery Division Policy RDP9521.3, Private Non-Profit Facility Eligibility (May 2003).
- Response and Recovery Directorate Policy RRDP9521.1, Community Center Eligibility (August 1998).
- 44 CFR §206.223(a)(3) states that the Applicant must be legally responsible for an item of work in order to be eligible for Public Assistance.
- The Applicant did not provide a deed, lease, or any other documentation that demonstrates it is legally responsible for repairs and maintenance of the facility.
- RDP 9521.3 requires a facility be primarily used for eligible services. Where a facility is used for both eligible and ineligible activities, the facility must dedicate over 50 percent of its space to the eligible use.
- Here, the facility’s use for eligible services does not meet the “over 50 percent” threshold for space or time.
Community Care and Restoration Center Inc. (Applicant) is a private non-profit (PNP) organization that conducts business in a facility located at 2143 Simon Bolivar, New Orleans, Louisiana. Hurricane Katrina caused damage to about 45 percent of the facility’s roof as well as its interior. In Project Worksheet (PW) 20404, FEMA determined that the facility was ineligible for Public Assistance funding because the Applicant did not demonstrate that it was legally responsible for the maintenance and repairs of the facility. In addition, the Applicant failed to show that the mixed-use facility was used primarily for eligible PNP activities. In the first appeal, the Applicant asserted that it was legally responsible for the facility because the Applicant’s representative is solely responsible for all of the facility’s repairs and maintenance. In addition, the Applicant asserted that the facility was used primarily (over 50 percent of space) for eligible activities. The Region VI Regional Administrator denied the appeal, finding that another entity owned the facility, and the Applicant did not provide a lease demonstrating that it was responsible for repairs and maintenance. In addition, the Regional Administrator determined that only nine percent of the space was used for possible eligible activities. In the second appeal, the Applicant, again, asserts that it is legally responsible for the facility through its agent. In addition, the Applicant disagrees with FEMA’s evaluation of the eligible square footage of the facility in determining the facility’s primary use.