U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.

Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.

The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Leavenworth Unified School District, Safe Room

Appeal Brief

ApplicantKansas Division of Emergency Management
Appeal Type2nd
Project Number29
Date Signed
1st Appeal• Issueo The State of Kansas, on behalf of Leavenworth Unified School District (USD) submitted a sub-application for the construction of a community safe room as part of a stadium construction project. Following review at the Regional level the project was sent to HQ for a Large Project Notification. Prior to notification, FEMA implemented funding restrictions such that funding through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) would not be available until approximately 1 year after application. The subapplicant engineers indicated that a redesign, excluding the community safe room portion of the project from initial construction, would incur significant engineering costs. Based on this information, the subapplicant initiated construction with the safe room included and requested that because they complied with FEMA technical requirements, that the project be funded when funds became available. Region VII subsequently notified the subapplicant that the project was ineligible for funding, and the State submitted an appeal.• Reason for Denialo Region VII based the denial of the 1st appeal on the fact that the project was ineligible because construction had been initiated and became a project in progress prior to grant approval.• Reference(s)o 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility;   44 CFR 206.440 Appeals, 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures2nd Appeal• Issueo The State filed a second appeal, stating that the delay in grant approval caused by a DRF funding freeze required them to initiate construction prior to grant approval and that the approval timeline was a mitigating factor.• FEMA Findingso FEMA HQ denied the 2nd appeal, supporting Region VII’s decision to deny the 1st appeal.o Rationale: The subapplicant initiated construction of the safe room prior to FEMA awarding the grant and FEMA does not have discretion with regard to program regulations.o Reference(s):  44 CFR 206.440 Appeals; 44 CFR 206.434 Eligibility; 44 CFR 206.436(d) Application Procedures; 44 CFR Part 206.439(c) Allowable Costs

 

Appeal Letter

U.S. Department of Homeland Security500 C Street, SWWashington, DC 20472FEMA   Sep 09 2011   Angee MorganDeputy DirectorKansas Division of Emergency Management2800 Southwest Topeka BoulevardTopeka, Kansas 66611-1287   Re: Second Appeal: Leavenworth Unified School District, Safe Room,FEMA DR-1741-KS, HMGP Project No. 29   Dear Ms. Morgan: This is in response to your letter dated May 16, 2011, to the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), regarding the City of Leavenworth Unified School District (Leavenworth USD) Safe Room Application. The Leavenworth USD requested that FEMA approve funding for the Safe Room project. Background:On June 23, 2009, the State submitted a sub-application on behalf of the Leavenworth USD to construct an 8,000 square-foot safe room at an estimated cost of $1,858,618 ($1 ,393,964 Federal share). FEMA Regional staff reviewed the application, including the design of the safe room, and determined that the project was eligible for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. Prior to obligating grants with Federal shares of $1 million or more, statute requires FEMA to notify Congress of the proposed award. On January 26,2010, the Regional staff submitted a Large Project Notification for the proposed project to FEMA Headquarters as the initial step in the Congressional notification process. Before the Congressional notification process was completed, FEMA implemented restrictions on funding disaster grants, such that funds for this project were not available for obligation until August 2010. Therefore, FEMA did not make a grant award for the proposed project. In August 2010, the FEMA Regional staff learned from the State that Leavenworth USD began construction of the safe room in early February 2010 prior to final project approval. In a letter dated January 12, 2011, Bob Bisell, Regional Mitigation Division Director, notified the Kansas Division of Emergency Management (KDEM) that the Leavenworth USD safe room application was ineligible for funding because construction of the project began prior to final project approval. In a letter dated January 12, 2011, KDEM submitted an appeal to the FEMA Regional Administrator requesting approval for retroacative funding of the project. The Regional Administrator denied the appeal in a letter dated May 6, 2011. On May 16, 2011, KDEM submitted a second level appeal to FEMA Headquarters seeking to overturn the Regional Administrator's decision on the first appeal.   Analysis:The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 206.434(d)(2), (44 CFR 206.434(d)(2)) Eligibility, states in part " ... Activities for which implementation has already been initiated or completed are not eligible for funding." 44 CFR 206.439(c), Allowable Costs, states in part "Costs associated with implementation of the activity but incurred prior to grant award are not eligible. Therefore, activities where implementation is initiated or completed prior to award are not eligible and will not be reimbursed." There is no dispute that Leavenworth USD initiated construction of the safe room before FEMA awarded the grant. The issue is whether FEMA has discretion to fund the project when the project does not comply with program regulations. Regulations have the force of law. FEMA does not have discretion to waive the regulations. Conclusion:Based on review of all information submitted with the appeal, I have determined that the Regional Administrator's decision on the first appeal is in accordance with program regulations. Therefore, the appeal is denied.   Please inform the Leavenworth USD of my determination. My determination is FEMA's final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR 206.440, Appeals. Sincerely,   Sandra K. Knight, PhD, PEDeputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation   cc: Beth Freeman, Regional Administrator FEMA Region VII

 

Appeal Analysis

While FEMA Region V had originally determined that the proposed safe room was eligible for HMGP funding, and submitted on January 26, 2010 a Large Project Notification for the project to FEMA Headquarters for Congressional notificatoin, construction of the safe room began in early February 2010, prior to final project approval.   Project approval, and a first appeal, were denied.   The 2nd appeal denial letter provides an analsis:   The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 44, Part 206.434(d)(2), (44 CFR 206.434(d)(2)) Eligibility, states in part " ... Activities for which implementation has already been initiated or completed are not eligible for funding." 44 CFR 206.439(c), Allowable Costs, states in part "Costs associated with implementation of the activity but incurred prior to grant award are not eligible. Therefore, activities where implementation is initiated or completed prior to award are not eligible and will not be reimbursed." There is no dispute that Leavenworth USD initiated construction of the safe room before FEMA awarded the grant. The issue is whether FEMA has discretion to fund the project when the project does not comply with program regulations. Regulations have the force of law. FEMA does not have discretion to waive the regulations.

 

Last updated Aug 19, 2014

Would you like to take a brief survey regarding your experience with fema.gov?