Douglas Park Tennis Courts

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter Appeal Analysis

Appeal Brief

Disaster	FEMA-1008-DR
Applicant	City of Santa Monica
Appeal Type	Second
PA ID#	037-70000
PW ID#	99924
Date Signed	1997-10-07T04:00:00

Citation: FEMA-1008-DR-CA; City of Santa Monica; DSR 99924

Cross - Reference: Temporary Work, Permanent Work, Disaster Related Damages

Summary: The City of Santa Monica reported damages to two concrete tennis courts located in Douglas Park, as a result of the 1994 Northridge earthquake. At the initial site inspection, the FEMA/OES inspection team observed some cracking which had previously been repaired. The applicant requested that additional repair efforts be performed on these cracks for a cost of $4,285 in order to fully restore the function of the courts. FEMA concluded that the cracks and the initial repair efforts had occurred prior to the disaster such that no disaster related damages could be documented. Accordingly, FEMA prepared DSR 99924 to document the applicant's request, but denied funding. The applicant submitted a first appeal asserting that the observed initial repairs were performed after, and as a result of, the disaster. The Regional Director maintained that the cracking was not disaster related and denied the first appeal. The applicant's second appeal again maintains that the repairs were performed after the disaster and has submitted documentation to support this position. The applicant is requesting funding for the initial repairs as emergency work ($2,695) and the additional repairs as permanent restoration ($4,872).

Issues:

1. Were the tennis courts damaged as a result of the disaster?
2. If yes, what is the acceptable level of repair to restore the facility to its predisaster condition?

Findings:

1. Yes. The available documentation and recent site visit support that some disaster related damages occurred to the tennis courts.
2. The eligible scope of work to restore the facility to its predisaster condition is limited to the initial repair efforts ($2,695). A DSR for these costs will be prepared. The current condition of the courts does not support the need for additional repair efforts.

Rationale: To be eligible for permanent restoration assistance, a facility must have incurred damages as a result of the declared disaster. Permanent restoration work is generally limited to restoring the facility on the basis of its design as it existed immediately prior to the disaster.
44CFR206.223(a)(1); 44CFR206.226

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Monica (applicant) is responsible for the maintenance of two concrete tennis courts at Douglas Park, which were originally built in the early 1950's. The applicant reported damages to the tennis courts as a result of the January 1994 Northridge earthquake. An inspection team consisting of inspectors of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES), along with a representative for the applicant, visited the site on September 7, 1994, to observe the damages and to prepare a damage survey report (DSR).

At the time of the inspection, the only evidence of cracking of the pavement observed by the FEMA/OES inspectors was some cracks, averaging 1/2 to 5/8 inches in width, which had been repaired with flexible caulking and painted, at some time prior to the inspection. The applicant submitted a quote for $4,285 to the inspectors for additional repair work for these cracks, but did not request funding for the repair work which was already complete. The inspectors concluded that the cracking and the completed repair work had occurred prior to the disaster, such that no disaster related damages were found to necessitate the additional repair efforts requested by the applicant. The FEMA inspector prepared DSR 99924 (Category G) in the amount of $4,285 to document the request of the applicant, but neither the FEMA nor the OES inspector recommended the scope of work as no disaster related damages were found. Upon review of the inspectors recommendation of ineligibility, the FEMA reviewer requested a second site inspection. The second FEMA/OES inspection concurred with the initial assessment that no disaster damage was present. DSR 99924 was processed on March 3, 1995, as ineligible.

First Appeal
With a July 28, 1995, letter, OES transmitted the applicant's June 5, 1995, first appeal. The applicant asserted that the tennis courts did suffer damage from the earthquake and that the additional repair effort is necessary for a complete repair. The applicant acknowledged that prior to the disaster, the tennis courts exhibited some cracks, but stated that they were only minor and the courts were fully functional. The applicant stated that following the earthquake, the cracks became more substantial and the courts were unusable. The applicant clarified that the repair work observed by the inspectors were recent repairs of the earthquake cracking, contracted for and undertaken in June 1994, after the disaster but prior to the inspection. The applicant stated that reimbursement of the costs for these initial repairs ($2,695) was being requested in a separate DSR as "emergency" work. It is noted that FEMA has no record of such a request.

To support their request for the additional repair work, the applicant indicated that although they had originally assumed that the initial June 1994 repair would be the permanent repair, the cracks had since widened, necessitating a more substantial repair wherein the cracks would be drilled out and an asphalt overlay would be applied. The applicant requested funding in the amount of $4,872, which included the initial $4,285 presented on DSR 99924, plus an additional $587 toward a safety inspection. The Regional Director denied the first appeal maintaining that the damage to the tennis courts was not disaster-related, but rather pre-existing.

Second Appeal
The State's April 9, 1996, letter transmitted the applicant's February 1, 1996, second appeal of DSR 99924 to FEMA. In this appeal, the applicant is requesting funding for both the initially completed repair work ($2,695) and the additional repair work ($4,872) which has not yet been completed (total funding $7,567). The applicant maintains that the observed cracking was caused by the disaster and that both efforts of repair should be eligible for FEMA assistance.

DISCUSSION
The primary issues of this appeal are whether the tennis courts suffered damage from the disaster and if so, what is the acceptable level of repair to restore the courts to their predisaster condition. The applicant has provided documentation to support that the initial repairs, as were observed by the inspection team, were completed in June of 1994, after the disaster. In response to the second appeal, FEMA again visited the site to observe the condition of the tennis courts. Based on the review of the documentation submitted by the applicant in the second appeal and the recent observations made at the site, FEMA concurs that the facility did suffer some damage from the disaster, such that restoration of the tennis courts is eligible for FEMA assistance.

The applicant states that the initial repair work was completed expeditiously to allow resumption of the tennis instruction program, but that the level of repair was found not to be sufficient, evidenced by further opening of the cracks, thus requiring additional efforts to adequately restore the courts. The applicant has suggested that this initial level of work was performed as a temporary or emergency measure, and that the requested additional work should be considered the permanent repair. It is understood that the requested additional work has not yet been completed, and that the courts are currently in operation.

Based on the site inspections made after the initial repairs were completed, and the recent site visit after receipt of the second appeal, it is concluded that the initial repair effort ($2,695) was sufficient to restore the facility to its predisaster condition. Reestablishment of operations of a recreational facility is not a justification for emergency work. Further, the observed condition of the courts does not support the need for the additional repair work. Accordingly, a supplemental DSR will be prepared to provide funding to the applicant for the completed initial repairs in the amount of $2,695. The remaining additional work is not eligible for FEMA assistance.

CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the tennis courts did suffer damage from the Northridge earthquake. However, the eligible scope of repair to restore the facility to its predisaster condition is limited to the initial repair work completed in June 1994. A supplemental DSR will be prepared in the amount of $2,695. The current condition of the repaired courts does not demonstrate the need for the additional repair efforts. Accordingly, I have determined that this additional scope of work ($4,872) is not eligible for FEMA funding.