alert - warning

This page has not been translated into Español. Visit the Español page for resources in that language.

Mahalia Jackson Elementary School

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DesastreFEMA-1603-DR
ApplicantOrleans Parish School Board - 2nd
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#071-UFT13-00
PW ID#Multiple PWs
Date Signed2010-02-15T05:00:00

SECOND APPEAL BRIEF

FEMA-1603-DR-LA, Orleans Parish School Board, PA ID 071-UFT13-00

Mahalia Jackson Elementary School, Project Worksheets 15171 v3, 15206 v3, 15224 v3,15234 v3 and 15245 v3

 

Citation:      FEMA-1603-DR-LA, Orleans Parish School Board, Mahalia Jackson School, Project Worksheets (PW) 15171 v3, 15206 v3, 15224 v3, 15234v3 and 15245v3             

Cross-

Reference:   General work eligibility

 

Summary:   Following Hurricane Katrina, FEMA approved funding for   five PWs: 15171, 15206,  

                     15224, 15234 and 15245, for damage to five buildings at Mahalia Jackson Elementary

                     School.  FEMA approved $4,657,684 to repair disaster-related damage, including

                     replacing some windows and remediating mold on the first floor of each building. The

                     Applicant subsequently requested additional funds to replace the window systems in

                     each building and to remediate mold on the second floor of four buildings.  FEMA

                     denied the request because its re-inspection of the buildings in 2008 did not support the

                      level of damage that the Applicant claimed.   The Regional Administrator sustained the

                     decision on first appeal.  The Applicant did not submit any compelling information

 

 

Issue:           Has the Applicant demonstrated that the replacement of the windows and the

                     remediation of mold on the second floors are eligible for funding?

 

Finding:       No.

 

Rationale:    44 CFR §206.223(a)(1), General work eligibility; 44 CFR §206.223(e), General   work eligibility, Negligence

 

 

 

Appeal Letter

June 15, 2010

 

 

 

Mark DeBosier

Deputy Director

Recovery Division

Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness

7667 Independence Boulevard

Baton Rouge, LA 70806

 

Re:  Second Appeal–Orleans Parish School Board, PA ID 071-UFT13-00, Mahalia Jackson Elementary School, FEMA-1603-DR-LA, Project Worksheets (PW) 15171, 15206, 15224, 15234 and 15245

 

Dear Mr. DeBosier:

 

This is in response to your letters, dated February 12, 2009, which transmitted the referenced second appeals on behalf of the Orleans Parish School Board (Applicant).  The Applicant is appealing the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) denial of additional funding to repair damage to five buildings at the Mahalia Jackson Elementary School. 


Background

 

Mahalia Jackson Elementary School was constructed in 1954.  When Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, the buildings on campus were not used for classroom instruction.  Instead, the buildings were used for administrative functions and storage.  Katrina damaged the five buildings at the Mahalia Jackson Elementary School.  FEMA prepared PW 15206 to document disaster damages to Building A, PW 15234 for Building B, PW 15171 for Building C, PW 15245 for Building D; and PW 15224 for Building E.  Buildings A-D are 2-story structures, and Building E is a 1-story structure.  The buildings have an extensive awning window curtainwall operated by cranks.  Flood waters rose up to eight inches inside the buildings and remained for about three weeks.

 

FEMA inspected the five buildings in June 2006 and documented some damage to windows and limited mold on the first floor on Buildings A-D and the lower part of Building E, and minor roof damage to Buildings A and C.  FEMA obligated the initial PWs in February and March 2007.  In the fall of 2007, FEMA inspected the buildings again to document damage to components of the buildings it could not access in 2006.  FEMA revised the scopes of work and cost estimates and obligated version 2 of the PWs in March 2008.  In April 2008, the Applicant requested FEMA inspect the buildings a third time.  The Applicant submitted two technical reports to FEMA which purportedly supported its request for funds to replace the window system in each of the five buildings and remediate mold on the second floor of four of the buildings.  It also submitted to FEMA an estimate of $13,465,591 to repair disaster damages, which included costs to remediate mold on the second floor of four of the buildings and replace the window system in each building.  The Applicant subsequently reduced its estimate to $7,163,736.   In April 2008, FEMA re-inspected the buildings, adjusted the scopes of work and cost estimates and determined that the total cost to repair eligible disaster damage was $4,657,684 for the five PWs, before deductions for insurance.  FEMA determined that, based on a detailed evaluation of the buildings and a review of information the Applicant submitted, the cost to replace the windows and remediate the molds were not eligible because the damage to these elements was not caused by the disaster.  FEMA obligated version 3 of each PW in June 2008.  The Applicant submitted its first appeal of version 3 of each PW on June 17, 2008.  The Regional Administrator denied the appeal on October 21, 2008.

 

In July 2008, FEMA obligated version 4 of each PW to designate the PW as alternate projects based on the Applicant’s request.  FEMA obligated version 5 of each PW in April 2009 to designate the PWs improved projects, instead of alternate projects, and approved an additional $2,283,983 for hazard mitigation.    

 

The Applicant submitted a second appeal for each PW in separate letters dated December 9, 2008, requesting $13,465,591 -- $1,843,460 for Building A; $2,634,975 for Building B; $3,395,941 for Building C; $2,634,975 for Building D; and, $2,956,240 for Building E.  The requested scopes of work include replacing the window systems in each building and remediating mold in the buildings.  The Applicant stated that the Julien Engineering Report supports its claim that the Hurricane Katrina damaged the windows beyond repair and that FEMA did not provide adequate justification for denying funding to remediate mold on the second floor of four buildings.

 

On August 14, 2009, the Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorate and the Acting Division Director of the Public Assistance Division met with the Applicant in Washington, D.C. to discuss the appeal.

 

Discussion

 

The Applicant’s second appeal stated that the amount in dispute is $13,465,591.  The record indicates that Mr. Brian O’Malley, on behalf of the Applicant, submitted to FEMA an initial estimate of $13,465,591 to repair the damage at the school.  He subsequently submitted a revised estimate of $7,154,906.  FEMA determined that the cost to repair disaster damage at the school was $4,657,684.  Therefore, the amount in dispute is $2,497,222.  The two issues under appeal are the replacement of the windows in each building and the remediation of mold on the second floor of four buildings.  The Applicant submits that the Julien Engineering Report, dated April 11, 2008, provides an indisputable basis for replacing the windows.  The Julien Engineering Report is a two-and-one-third-page report in outline form with five pages of pictures of windows in the five buildings that records the firm’s observations of the structural condition of the buildings based on several site visits.  Section I (A)(1) of the report states, “This report presents statements of professional opinion based upon findings and conclusions regarding the structural conditions of the two-story interconnected school buildings with respect to hurricane damage.”  Emphasis added.  Section I (B)(1) states in part, “Observations were limited to general conditions of the foundation and structural system.” Section III (A)(5) states, “The buildings have an extensive operable window system, mostly awning type.  The window units of each interconnected building form systems of curtainwalls protection to the interior.”  Section III (B)(3) states, “The window system showed signs of significant movement as a result of positive and negative suction wind pressure.  Where window units weren’t blown out completely, they were either twisted, deformed or had glazing damaged or extricated by excessive wind pressure.  All window systems for the buildings require replacement.  Section (IV)(A) states, “All conclusions are the Engineer’s opinion based on sound engineering judgment and limited information available.”  Finally, Section IV (B)(2) states, “Strictly based on observations conducted: a. the window curtainwall is in poor condition and requires replacement.”

 

FEMA documented its observations of the condition of the windows in the PWs.  During the April 2008 inspection FEMA observed that some of the windows on both sides of the building did not seat properly.  The fact that windows on both sides of the buildings were affected in the same way cast doubt on the plausibility that positive and negative wind pressure during Hurricane Katrina caused the windows not to close properly.  Therefore, the FEMA staff concluded that the disaster did not cause the windows to not close properly.  The Julien Report does not provide compelling justification to conclude that the amount of disaster-related damage to the windows make the replacement of the entire window systems eligible under the Public Assistance Program.

 

FEMA inspected the buildings in June 2006 and documented the level of mold damage in the PWs.  The additional mold observed in the buildings in 2008 is not directly attributable to Hurricane Katrina.  Therefore, the cost to remediate the additional mold on the second floors is not eligible for reimbursement under the Public Assistance Program.

 

Conclusion

 

I have reviewed the information submitted with the appeal and determined that the Applicant did not present any compelling information to support its request for additional funds.  The Regional Administrator’s decision in the first appeal is consistent with Public Assistance regulations and policies. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.

 

Please inform the Applicant of my decision.  This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR §206.206, Appeals.



Sincerely,

 /s/

Elizabeth A. Zimmerman

Assistant Administrator

Recovery Directorate




cc:  Tony Russell

        Regional Administrator

        FEMA Region VI