Result of the Declared Incident

Appeal Brief

Summary Paragraph

The State of Missouri was impacted by severe storms and flooding from July 25 – July 28, 2022. Agape Time Ministries Inc. (Applicant) requested $400,756.08 for work to replace the roof and repair interior damage to its church building (Facility). The Applicant claims that heavy rain and wind compromised the roof structure causing it to leak. FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 688791 to document work and costs for the Applicant’s claim. FEMA denied the requested funding in a Determination Memorandum finding the Applicant did not demonstrate the work to replace the roof or repair the associated interior damage was required as a direct result of the declared incident. The Applicant submitted a first appeal, asserting that roof damage was a direct result of the declared incident, and provided documentation to support is assertion. The FEMA Region 7 Regional Administrator denied the appeal. FEMA determined the Applicant did not demonstrate that the work to replace the Facility’s roof and repair associated interior damages was required as a result of the declared incident. The Applicant submitted a second appeal reiterating its previous statements.

Authorities

• Stafford Act § 102, 406(a)(1)(B), (e), 42 U.S.C § 5172(a)(1)(B).
• 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.206(a), 206.223(a)(1).
• PAPPG, at 51-52, 63-64, 172.
• Paintsville Utilities, FEMA-4595-DR-KY, at 4.

Headnotes

• To be eligible for Public Assistance (PA) funding, work must be required as a direct result of the declared incident and the applicant must demonstrate that the damage was directly caused by the incident.
  • The Applicant has not demonstrated the disaster damaged the Facility and the claimed repairs are required as a result of the declared incident.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that work to replace the Facility’s roof is required as a result of the declared incident, but rather the result of predisaster conditions. Therefore, the requested work is ineligible for PA funding and this appeal is denied.

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

From July 25 through 28, 2022, severe storms and flooding impacted the state of Missouri.[1] Agape Time Ministries, Inc. (Applicant), a Private Nonprofit entity, requested Public Assistance (PA) funding to repair damages to its church (Facility). FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 688791/Project Worksheet 133, to document the Applicant’s request for $515,348.17, of which $400,756.08 was related to claimed roof damage and interior damage (e.g., ceiling tile damage) resulting from water intrusion coming through the roof.[2] FEMA performed a site inspection on November 21, 2022, documenting the claimed damages and noting the requested method of repair for the roof was to replace the roof with a change in material to a different type of roof.

On May 15, 2023, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum, denying $400,756.08 in requested costs for roof damage and associated interior damage resulting from the claimed roof damage.[3] FEMA found the Applicant did not demonstrate that the work to repair the roof was a result of the declared disaster. FEMA noted that insurance reports, submitted by the Applicant, highlighted preexisting damages and deterioration. FEMA found that the Applicant did not provide documentation, such as pre-incident photographs or records of roof repair work done prior to the incident, to distinguish preexisting damages from disaster-related damages. 

First Appeal 

The Applicant appealed the denial in a letter dated June 7, 2023. In its appeal, the Applicant asserted that the claimed roof damage was a direct result of the disaster, because severe wind and rapid rainfall from the disaster had compromised the structural integrity of the roof. To support its assertion, the Applicant submitted, among other items: (1) 2020 photographs of the roof taken by the Applicant’s insurance company; (2) a June 2021 property appraisal; (3) predisaster maintenance records for the Facility, including January 20, 2022 invoices and a report relating to the roof, for the removal of moss and other vegetation growing on the roof and through drains; (4) a March 23, 2023 letter from its insurance company, in which the insurer determined that the issues stemming from the roof pre-dated the Applicant’s claim (e.g., previously unrepaired roof damages), and that no storm-related damage of hail or wind was found on the roof; (5) a December 24, 2022 roof inspection report by the Applicant’s consultant, stating its engineer believed 70 percent of the roof was damaged during the event and that there were several sink holes and air pockets holding water and causing leakage in various locations along the roof.

The Missouri State Emergency Management Agency (Recipient) transmitted the first appeal on June 27, 2023, stating the Applicant had not provided sufficient documentation to show the roof damages were a direct result of the event, and recommended FEMA’s determination of ineligibility be sustained.

On October 10, 2023, the FEMA Region 7 Regional Administrator denied the appeal. FEMA determined that the Applicant did not provide documentation demonstrating that the work to repair the Facility’s roof and associated interior damages was required as a direct result of the declared incident. 

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted its second appeal letter dated November 6, 2023, reiterating its first appeal arguments that it had demonstrated the roof and interior damages were caused by the declared incident. The Applicant asserts that the January 20, 2022 report relating to the moss removal included a summary report indicating that the roof system should last another five to seven years. Furthermore, the Applicant states that the roof analysis from its consultant notes the presence of several sink holes and air pockets holding water and causing leakage in various locations along the roof, and that their recommendation is to replace the roof.

The Recipient transmitted the second appeal in a letter dated November 17, 2023, stating that the Applicant’s second appeal has not adequately documented the roof damages being a direct result of the event and recommends FEMA’s determination of ineligibility be sustained.

Discussion

FEMA may provide PA funding to eligible applicants for the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of eligible facilities damaged or destroyed by a major disaster based on pre-disaster design and function and in conformity with applicable codes and standards.^[4] To be eligible for PA funding, work must be required as a result of the declared incident and the applicant must demonstrate that the damage was directly caused by the incident.^[5] FEMA does not provide PA funding for repair of damage caused by deterioration or deferred maintenance.^[6] For buildings and building systems, distinguishing between damage caused by the incident and pre-existing damage may be difficult.[7] Before making an eligibility determination, FEMA considers evidence of regular maintenance and evidence of pre-disaster condition.[8] If the applicant does not provide documentation to support its claim as eligible, FEMA cannot provide PA funding for the work.^[9] 

Here, the Applicant requests PA funding to replace its roof, but does not distinguish preexisting damages to the roof from the claimed disaster-related damages. The predisaster 2020 photographs of the Applicant’s roof show preexisting damages and deterioration, such as cracking of roof joints and ponding and pooling of water on the flat roof’s surface. During a post-disaster roof inspection in August 2022, the Applicant’s insurer similarly observed cracking of roof joints and ponding/pooling of water on the flat roof’s surfaces.[10] The insurer further noted that the instant claim presented issues similar to two prior insurance roof claims for the Facility that pre-dated the disaster.[11] 

In contrast, the Applicant points to the Facility’s predisaster 2021 appraisal and December 2022 report from its consultant. However, regarding the predisaster appraisal, the appraiser specifically stated that one of its assumptions in determining the Facility’s estimated market value was that the roof was in good condition, as the appraiser did not have the skill or expertise needed to make such an inspection.[12] Concerning the December 2022 consultant report, the entire report is comprised of one paragraph appearing on one page. The consulting firm stated that it “believe[d] that 70 [percent] of the roof ha[d] been damaged from inclement weather during the event . . . and there [we]re multiple sink holes all around the roof and multiple air pockets that [we]re holding water (which is why some areas of the roof [we]re leaking at various locations).”[13] However, the firm does not clearly delineate what roof damages are purportedly disaster-related nor describe how any roof damages were directly caused by the disaster. 

While the Applicant provided predisaster maintenance records that include removal of moss and vegetation from the roof, it did not provide documentation demonstrating it performed regular predisaster maintenance to the roof. Therefore, the January 2022 work does not assist FEMA in validating the claimed disaster-related damages. Similarly, although the predisaster report relating to the moss removal work stated the roof system should last five to seven more years before needing to be replaced, this does validate that the claimed damages are disaster-related rather than the pre-existing damages and deterioration present before the disaster. Lastly, the administrative record reflects that the Applicant desires to replace the roof with a different material than was present predisaster; which goes beyond restoring the roof to its predisaster design and function.[14]

Based on the above, the Applicant has not demonstrated the requested work to replace the roof is required as a result of the declared incident, nor that the disaster caused the damages which resulted in water intrusion. Therefore, the associated interior damages are also ineligible.

Conclusion

The Applicant has not demonstrated that work to replace the Facility’s roof and repair interior damages is required as a result of the declared incident. Therefore, the requested work is ineligible for PA funding and this appeal is denied.