alert - warning

This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.

Time Extension, Alternate Project, Improved Project

Appeal Brief Appeal Letter

Appeal Brief

DisasterFEMA-1067-DR
ApplicantUS Virgin Islands Housing Authority
Appeal TypeSecond
PA ID#000-92041
PW ID#83502, 83595, and 83600
Date Signed2003-12-09T05:00:00
Citation: FEMA-1067-DR-VI; US Virgin Islands Housing Authority (VIHA); DSRs 83502, 83595 and 83600
Cross-reference: Request for time extensions

Summary: The Estates Donoe and Tutu appeal consist of multiple appeals. However, at VIHA’s request FEMA will consider Estate Donoe and Estate Tutu apartments complexes as one 2nd level appeal. Hurricane Marilyn struck the U.S. Virgin Islands in September 1995, causing extensive damage. VIHA projected repairs at the Estates Tutu and Donoe complexes to be completed by December 31, 1995. The last completion deadline was June 30, 2000. At the Estate Donoe complexes, VIHA requested a time extension to March 31, 2003, while awaiting an approval on a Demolition Grant. FEMA denied the time extension because the request for a time extension was made after the completion date and that demolition was not an eligible Improved Project. FEMA prepared deobligation DSR 83502 for $868,791. VIHA appealed the denial of the Improved Project as an Alternate Project, as well as the deobligation of funds. FEMA denied the appeal, restating the previous reasons for denial. At the Estate Tutu complex, VIHA requested an Alternate Project to use funds intended for the repair of a building demolished by VIHA towards repairs on other apartment buildings. FEMA denied the alternate project. VIHA then requested a time extension to December 31, 2003, which FEMA denied and prepared deobligation DSRs 83595 and 83600 in the amount of $820,419. Subsequently, VIHA submitted an appeal. To date there is no evidence of eligible work related to the open DSRs having been performed on Estate Donoe and Estate Tutu in the eight years since it was initially approved.

Issues: Do circumstances cited by the applicant justify approval of a time extension?

Findings: No.

Rationale: 44 CFR § 206.204 (d)(2) and 44 CFR § 13.30 (d)(1)

Appeal Letter

December 9, 2003

Mr. Ira R. Mills
Governor’s Authorized Representative
Office of Management and Budget
#4 Norre Gade
Emancipation Garden Station, 2nd Floor
St. Thomas, VI 00802

Re: Second Appeal – U.S. Virgin Island Housing Authority, PA ID 000-92041,
Time Extension, Alternate Project, Improved Project, FEMA-1067-DR-VI, Disaster Survey Reports (DSRs) 83502, 83595 and 83600

Dear Mr. Mills:

This is in response to your letter of June 16, 2003, transmitting the referenced appeal on behalf of the U.S. Virgin Island Housing Authority (VIHA). VIHA is appealing the denial of project time extensions, an alternative project, and the deobligation of funding for work at Estate Donoe and Estate Tutu apartment complexes.

In a July 14, 2003, letter VIHA requested the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to consider Estate Donoe and Estate Tutu apartments complexes, and Michael J. Kirwan Terrance housing community as one appeal. This letter was received after Michael J. Kirwan Terrance was received as a separate second appeal and addressed by FEMA in a decision letter dated September 17, 2003. However, Estate Donoe and Tutu apartments, which are currently a series of first and second appeals addressing open DSRs for the apartment complexes, shall henceforth be considered as one and reviewed as a second level appeal.

The U.S. Virgin Islands received a Federal disaster declaration on September 16, 1995, after suffering extensive damage from Hurricane Marilyn. VIHA initially projected that FEMA repairs for Estate Tutu and Estate Donoe apartment complexes, combined with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) rehabilitation work to its housing communities, would be completed by December 31, 1995. The Governor’s Authorized Representative (GAR) granted two time extensions, extending the project completion dates for Estate Donoe and Estate Tutu to September 30, 1998 and June 30, 2000. To date, there is no evidence of eligible work having been performed at Estate Donoe and Estate Tutu.

Estate Donoe Apartment Complex
Funding for the Estate Donoe apartment complex was approved as an improved project. The GAR extended the completion deadline to September 30, 1998. In a letter dated April 3, 2001, VIHA requested a time extension to March 31, 2003, stating that it “was awaiting an approval on a Demolition Grant applied to remove dangerous conditions from the community.” The GAR transmitted the letter to FEMA on July 25, 2001.

FEMA denied the third time extension request on November 29, 2001, citing that VIHA submitted the request for a time extension after the approved completion date and that demolition of the entire Estate Donoe apartment complex was not an eligible improved project. FEMA stated: “An Improved Project is intended to provide improvements on damaged facilities in addition to restoring pre-disaster function. Demolition does not comply with the Improved Project Concept.” FEMA prepared DSR 83502 which deobligated $868,791.

In a letter dated August 21, 2002, VIHA appealed the denial of funding for the improved project and requested that it be considered as an alternate project, and the funds reobligated. The GAR transmitted the appeal to FEMA on October 8, 2002. VIHA indicated that the intent of the alternate project was to apply funding intended for Estate Donoe towards mitigation and improvements at Estate Tutu, and that the work (at Estate Tutu) would be completed by September 2004. FEMA denied the appeal in a letter dated November 21, 2002, restating the previous reasons for denial. FEMA also pointed out that the appeal was not received within the 60-day time frame as required under 44 CFR § 206.206 (c), but 11 months after the initial denial.

No new information regarding Estate Donoe has been submitted with the second appeal. FEMA holds to the original decision not to extend the completion deadline for Estate Donoe. To date no eligible work has been started on these sites after a period of eight years from initial approval.

Estate Tutu Apartment Complex, Buildings 1-18, 22, and Community Center
In a September 12, 2002, letter, VIHA requested an alternate project for the repair of Estate Tutu building 6, which had been demolished by VIHA, towards repair and mitigation measures for other apartment buildings within the Estate Tutu complex. FEMA denied the alternate project in a November 13, 2002, letter, because it was submitted seven years after the disaster declaration and two years after the approved project completion deadline.

In addition, in a letter dated September 30, 2002, VIHA requested a time extension to
December 31, 2003. The GAR transmitted the request to FEMA on November 18, 2002. In a letter dated December 5, 2002, FEMA denied the time extension because it was submitted over two years after the approved completion deadline of June 30, 2000, and because no work had been started in the seven years since the disaster. FEMA then prepared DSRs 55596 and 83600, which deobligated $820,419 in funding for Estate Tutu.

Subsequently, VIHA submitted an appeal dated March 21, 2003, which was transmitted by the GAR on June 16, 2003. VIHA petitioned for the time extension and the reobligation of funding. Citing 44 CFR § 206.204 (c), VIHA stated that while the request for time extensions was late, there were “many legitimate reasons” why the projects at Estate Donoe and Estate Tutu could not proceed.

No additional information has been submitted regarding Estate Tutu with the second appeal. FEMA holds to the original decision not to extend the completion deadline for Estate Tutu. No eligible work has been started on these sites after a period of eight years from initial approval.

Based on the above, there is no basis for granting the appealed costs and time extensions. Therefore, I am denying the appeal.

Please inform the applicant of my decision. My determination constitutes the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 CFR § 206.206.

Sincerely,
/S/
Daniel A. Craig
Director
Recovery Division
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate

cc: Joseph Picciano
Acting Regional Director
Region II