This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
Building and Environmental permit fees
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
Appeal Analysis
Citation: FEMA-DR-1046-CA, SONOMA COUNTY PERMIT AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, DSR 73250
Cross-Reference: Building Permit Fees, Extraordinary Circumstances
Summary: Late winter storms in March of 1995 caused flooding in Sonoma County, California. Building permit fees were waived by the subgrantee. DSR 73250 (Category G), for $14,475, was denied based on the policy that building permit activities are not eligible. The subgrantee submitted a first appeal contending that the work described in the DSR was eligible and that FEMA had obligated funds for waived building permit fees in other disasters (DR 1005 and DR 1008). The first appeal denial was again based on the fact that building permitting activities are not eligible. The First Appeal response also noted that the exceptions to this policy in 1005 and 1008 did not constitute precedence nor a change in policy. The subgrantee has filed a second appeal again requesting that the waived permit fees be reimbursed based on the fact that the permitting activities were disaster related and the same activities were eligible under several previous disasters.
Issues:
Late winter storms in March of 1995, caused flooding in Sonoma County, California. Fees for building permits were waived by the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (subgrantee). FEMA prepared damage survey report (DSR) 73250 (Category G), for $14,475, which covered the cost of processing the building permits, on June 27, 1995. This covered 50 Building Permits and 15 Environmental Health Permits. FEMA denied the DSR during review citing that the processing of permits is not eligible.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted their first appeal to the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) on October 2, 1995, contending that the work described in the DSR was eligible per 44 CFR and that FEMA had obligated funds for waived building permit fees in other disasters (DR 1005 and DR 1008). OES forwarded the subgrantee's first appeal to the Regional Director on December 5, 1995, concurring with the subgrantee. FEMA denied the first appeal on August 20, 1996. The basis for denial was that the permitting activities associated with the waived fees were not related to the permanent restoration of any eligible facility. Additionally, the First Appeal Analysis stated "Your letter (subgrantee's) is correct in noting that certain permitting fees have been reimbursed in prior disasters (1005 and 1008). However, we do not find that such exceptional cases constitute an official FEMA policy such that permitting fee waivers are generally reimbursable in all disasters."
Second Appeal
A second appeal was filed by the subgrantee on October 21, 1996, again citing of 44 CFR 206.223 as the building permits were necessary to repair damage caused by the disaster and previous FEMA actions relative to exceptional cases from other disasters (DR 1005 and DR 1008) as the basis. The subgrantee also contended that, based on the personal knowledge of their representative gained during the above mentioned previous disasters, FEMA had not regarded certain approved cases as exceptional. By letter dated February 6, 1996, OES forwarded the subgrantee's second appeal to the Regional Director, concurring with the subgrantee.
DISCUSSION
In the Second Appeal, the subgrantee took exception with FEMA's determination of ineligibility of the original DSR and in the First Appeal Analysis based on two issues.
First, the subgrantee claims that the ineligibility determination was contrary to FEMA's past practices for other disasters (DR 1005 and DR 1008) in accordance with 44 CFR 206.223. They also noted that 44 CFR had not changed between FEMA-1008-DR-CA and FEMA-1046-DR-CA. Additionally, they cite a January 4, 1994, FEMA memorandum stating the eligibility of permit fees which had been included in the original DSR. This memorandum was specific to FEMA-1005-DR-CA. The policy which explains the eligibility of building permits is stated in a FEMA memorandum dated October 4, 1993, issued during the Midwest floods (attached). This policy established eligibility for initial health and safety inspections, but not for inspections performed during the repair and reconstruction phase. Per this policy, FEMA does not typically reimburse applicants for costs of building permit programs. Disasters 1005 and 1008 were exceptions to this policy because of the extraordinary circumstances associated with those disasters. By letter, dated July 15, 1996, the FEMA Federal Coordinating Officer of the Northridge Long-Term Recovery Area Office clarified FEMA's determination that DR 1008 created extraordinary circumstances which required certain FEMA policies to be waived. The rationale used for these exceptions were specific to those disasters, and cannot be applied to all disasters. Therefore, to be consistent with the 1993 policy, the waived building permit fees are ineligible.
Second, the subgrantee's representative claimed he had personal knowledge that FEMA officials, in certain cases, did not view DR 1005 as extraordinary. Again the rationale for this exception to policy cannot be applied to other disasters.
CONCLUSION
The Second Appeal is denied. Pursuant the 1993 FEMA policy, the reimbursement of costs to process building permits is ineligible. Instances where exceptions were made to policy do not create precedent.
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-DR-1046 |
| Applicant | Sonoma County |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 097-91041 |
| PW ID# | 73250 |
| Date Signed | 1997-08-21T04:00:00 |
Cross-Reference: Building Permit Fees, Extraordinary Circumstances
Summary: Late winter storms in March of 1995 caused flooding in Sonoma County, California. Building permit fees were waived by the subgrantee. DSR 73250 (Category G), for $14,475, was denied based on the policy that building permit activities are not eligible. The subgrantee submitted a first appeal contending that the work described in the DSR was eligible and that FEMA had obligated funds for waived building permit fees in other disasters (DR 1005 and DR 1008). The first appeal denial was again based on the fact that building permitting activities are not eligible. The First Appeal response also noted that the exceptions to this policy in 1005 and 1008 did not constitute precedence nor a change in policy. The subgrantee has filed a second appeal again requesting that the waived permit fees be reimbursed based on the fact that the permitting activities were disaster related and the same activities were eligible under several previous disasters.
Issues:
- Are waived permit fees reimbursable under Section 206.223 of 44 CFR?
- Are FEMA actions taken during extraordinary disasters (DR 1005 and DR 1008) applicable to this disaster?
- No. Only those permitting activities associated with an immediate threat or public safety concerns are eligible.
- No. Actions taken for exceptional cases for specific disasters do not constitute reversal or modification of established policy.
Appeal Letter
August 21, 1997
Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
State Of California
P. O. Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823-9015
Dear Ms. Ward:
This letter is in response to your February 6, 1997, transmittal of the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department's second appeal of DSR 73250 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting reimbursement for county-wide waived building and environmental permit fees.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, I have denied this appeal for the reasons explained in the attached appeal analysis. Briefly, per FEMA October 4, 1993, policy, established during the midwest floods, FEMA does not typically reimburse applicants for costs of building permit programs. For exceptional cases related to extraordinary disasters, such as the Northridge Earthquake, FEMA has reimbursed applicants for waived permit fees; however, FEMA-1046-DR-CA is not considered in this category of disaster.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Ms. Nancy Ward
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
State Of California
P. O. Box 239013
Sacramento, California 95823-9015
Dear Ms. Ward:
This letter is in response to your February 6, 1997, transmittal of the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department's second appeal of DSR 73250 under FEMA-1046-DR-CA. The applicant is requesting reimbursement for county-wide waived building and environmental permit fees.
Based on a review of the documentation submitted, I have denied this appeal for the reasons explained in the attached appeal analysis. Briefly, per FEMA October 4, 1993, policy, established during the midwest floods, FEMA does not typically reimburse applicants for costs of building permit programs. For exceptional cases related to extraordinary disasters, such as the Northridge Earthquake, FEMA has reimbursed applicants for waived permit fees; however, FEMA-1046-DR-CA is not considered in this category of disaster.
Please inform the applicant of this determination and their right to submit a third appeal pursuant to 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
Appeal Analysis
BACKGROUNDLate winter storms in March of 1995, caused flooding in Sonoma County, California. Fees for building permits were waived by the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (subgrantee). FEMA prepared damage survey report (DSR) 73250 (Category G), for $14,475, which covered the cost of processing the building permits, on June 27, 1995. This covered 50 Building Permits and 15 Environmental Health Permits. FEMA denied the DSR during review citing that the processing of permits is not eligible.
First Appeal
The subgrantee submitted their first appeal to the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) on October 2, 1995, contending that the work described in the DSR was eligible per 44 CFR and that FEMA had obligated funds for waived building permit fees in other disasters (DR 1005 and DR 1008). OES forwarded the subgrantee's first appeal to the Regional Director on December 5, 1995, concurring with the subgrantee. FEMA denied the first appeal on August 20, 1996. The basis for denial was that the permitting activities associated with the waived fees were not related to the permanent restoration of any eligible facility. Additionally, the First Appeal Analysis stated "Your letter (subgrantee's) is correct in noting that certain permitting fees have been reimbursed in prior disasters (1005 and 1008). However, we do not find that such exceptional cases constitute an official FEMA policy such that permitting fee waivers are generally reimbursable in all disasters."
Second Appeal
A second appeal was filed by the subgrantee on October 21, 1996, again citing of 44 CFR 206.223 as the building permits were necessary to repair damage caused by the disaster and previous FEMA actions relative to exceptional cases from other disasters (DR 1005 and DR 1008) as the basis. The subgrantee also contended that, based on the personal knowledge of their representative gained during the above mentioned previous disasters, FEMA had not regarded certain approved cases as exceptional. By letter dated February 6, 1996, OES forwarded the subgrantee's second appeal to the Regional Director, concurring with the subgrantee.
DISCUSSION
In the Second Appeal, the subgrantee took exception with FEMA's determination of ineligibility of the original DSR and in the First Appeal Analysis based on two issues.
First, the subgrantee claims that the ineligibility determination was contrary to FEMA's past practices for other disasters (DR 1005 and DR 1008) in accordance with 44 CFR 206.223. They also noted that 44 CFR had not changed between FEMA-1008-DR-CA and FEMA-1046-DR-CA. Additionally, they cite a January 4, 1994, FEMA memorandum stating the eligibility of permit fees which had been included in the original DSR. This memorandum was specific to FEMA-1005-DR-CA. The policy which explains the eligibility of building permits is stated in a FEMA memorandum dated October 4, 1993, issued during the Midwest floods (attached). This policy established eligibility for initial health and safety inspections, but not for inspections performed during the repair and reconstruction phase. Per this policy, FEMA does not typically reimburse applicants for costs of building permit programs. Disasters 1005 and 1008 were exceptions to this policy because of the extraordinary circumstances associated with those disasters. By letter, dated July 15, 1996, the FEMA Federal Coordinating Officer of the Northridge Long-Term Recovery Area Office clarified FEMA's determination that DR 1008 created extraordinary circumstances which required certain FEMA policies to be waived. The rationale used for these exceptions were specific to those disasters, and cannot be applied to all disasters. Therefore, to be consistent with the 1993 policy, the waived building permit fees are ineligible.
Second, the subgrantee's representative claimed he had personal knowledge that FEMA officials, in certain cases, did not view DR 1005 as extraordinary. Again the rationale for this exception to policy cannot be applied to other disasters.
CONCLUSION
The Second Appeal is denied. Pursuant the 1993 FEMA policy, the reimbursement of costs to process building permits is ineligible. Instances where exceptions were made to policy do not create precedent.