This page has not been translated into 简体中文. Visit the 简体中文 page for resources in that language.
City Hall
Appeal Brief
Appeal Letter
N/A
Appeal Brief
| Disaster | FEMA-1008-DR |
| Applicant | City of San Clarita |
| Appeal Type | Second |
| PA ID# | 037-69088 |
| PW ID# | 64806 |
| Date Signed | 1999-05-04T04:00:00 |
Appeal Letter
May 4, 1999
D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Public Assistance Section, Disaster Field Office
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Second Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678
RE: Second Appeal - City of San Clarita, City Hall, FEMA-1008-DR-CA, DSR 64806
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to the referenced second appeal that you sent to FEMA on July 17, 1998. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 64806 deobligated $153,500 in funds originally approved as part of DSR 46316. These costs are associated with installing an emergency generator at City Hall. The installation of the generator was determined ineligible because the generator did not exist at the time of the disaster. Also, to fund changes to the predisaster construction of a facility, 44 CFR 206.226(b)(5) states that standards requiring such changes be in effect and enforced at the time of the disaster. In this case, FEMA determined that City Ordinance 89-6, establishing the City Hall as the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), was not being enforced.
The City appealed this determination on May 23, 1996. The appeal stated that because City Hall was the designated EOC, the 1991 Unified Building Code (UBC) and the National Electric Code (NEC) required the generator. The appeal was denied on February 4, 1998. FEMA found that the section of NEC cited referred specifically to health care facilities and the UBC section defined essential facilities as those "necessary for emergency operations subsequent to a natural disaster." The City showed that an EOC is an essential facility, but failed to prove that standards required a generator. In addition, there was no evidence to indicate that the City Hall had previously functioned as the EOC and could only be restored to pre-disaster capabilities, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.226(b)(2). Because changes to the predisaster capabilities of the facility could not be justified, the analysis concluded that since there was no generator at the time of the disaster, there was no disaster-related damage, an eligibility requirement stated in 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1).
The City submitted its second appeal on May 28, 1998. The City states that the Northridge Earthquake damaged the established EOC, an "essential facility." Thus, it claims there was disaster-related damage. It detailed the use of City Hall as the initial EOC during the earthquake and submitted agendas from two emergency exercises in 1991 in which the City Hall functioned as the EOC to indicate that Ordinance 89-6, establishing City Hall as the EOC, was enforced.
In addition, the City argues that standards in place at the time of the disaster required essential facilities be constructed or repaired according to current applicable codes. In its appeal, the City includes an incomplete citation of "Section 4-207," which it says "indicates that when a repair of an existing, non-complying essential service facility is made, it should be brought into full compliance." The actual code to which the City refers is not included in the appeal or file of previously submitted material.
According to the City, essential facilities must be equipped with emergency power to fully comply with codes. However, they do not indicate specific sections of code that require essential facilities be equipped with emergency generators. The first appeal response questioned the City's citation of code specifically related to health care facilities as justification for installing an emergency generator. The second appeal does not provide further explanation and simply states, "based on the codes, we are required to secure additional power support to essential facilities."
Section 406(e) of the Stafford Act allows FEMA discretionary authority to contribute to the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public facility on the basis of the design of the facility as it existed immediately prior to the disaster, or if a Federal, State, or local repair or replacement standard requires changes to the predisaster construction of a facility. FEMA may fund those changes (upgrades) if the standards meet the criteria set forth in 206.226(b). Here, however, even if City Hall was functioning as an EOC at the time of the disaster, the City has failed to show that an emergency generator is required by any code or standard related to an essential facility, or the construction or repair of such a facility. Therefore, because no generator existed prior to the disaster, the installation of the generator was not required as a result of the disaster, as necessary for eligibility according to 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1). The appeal is denied.
Please inform the applicant of my decision. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Christina Lopez
Federal Coordinating Officer
Northridge Long-Term Recovery Area Office
D.A. Christian
Governor's Authorized Representative
Governor's Office of Emergency Services
Public Assistance Section, Disaster Field Office
74 North Pasadena Avenue, West Annex, Second Floor
Pasadena, California 91103-3678
RE: Second Appeal - City of San Clarita, City Hall, FEMA-1008-DR-CA, DSR 64806
Dear Mr. Christian:
This is in response to the referenced second appeal that you sent to FEMA on July 17, 1998. Damage Survey Report (DSR) 64806 deobligated $153,500 in funds originally approved as part of DSR 46316. These costs are associated with installing an emergency generator at City Hall. The installation of the generator was determined ineligible because the generator did not exist at the time of the disaster. Also, to fund changes to the predisaster construction of a facility, 44 CFR 206.226(b)(5) states that standards requiring such changes be in effect and enforced at the time of the disaster. In this case, FEMA determined that City Ordinance 89-6, establishing the City Hall as the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), was not being enforced.
The City appealed this determination on May 23, 1996. The appeal stated that because City Hall was the designated EOC, the 1991 Unified Building Code (UBC) and the National Electric Code (NEC) required the generator. The appeal was denied on February 4, 1998. FEMA found that the section of NEC cited referred specifically to health care facilities and the UBC section defined essential facilities as those "necessary for emergency operations subsequent to a natural disaster." The City showed that an EOC is an essential facility, but failed to prove that standards required a generator. In addition, there was no evidence to indicate that the City Hall had previously functioned as the EOC and could only be restored to pre-disaster capabilities, pursuant to 44 CFR 206.226(b)(2). Because changes to the predisaster capabilities of the facility could not be justified, the analysis concluded that since there was no generator at the time of the disaster, there was no disaster-related damage, an eligibility requirement stated in 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1).
The City submitted its second appeal on May 28, 1998. The City states that the Northridge Earthquake damaged the established EOC, an "essential facility." Thus, it claims there was disaster-related damage. It detailed the use of City Hall as the initial EOC during the earthquake and submitted agendas from two emergency exercises in 1991 in which the City Hall functioned as the EOC to indicate that Ordinance 89-6, establishing City Hall as the EOC, was enforced.
In addition, the City argues that standards in place at the time of the disaster required essential facilities be constructed or repaired according to current applicable codes. In its appeal, the City includes an incomplete citation of "Section 4-207," which it says "indicates that when a repair of an existing, non-complying essential service facility is made, it should be brought into full compliance." The actual code to which the City refers is not included in the appeal or file of previously submitted material.
According to the City, essential facilities must be equipped with emergency power to fully comply with codes. However, they do not indicate specific sections of code that require essential facilities be equipped with emergency generators. The first appeal response questioned the City's citation of code specifically related to health care facilities as justification for installing an emergency generator. The second appeal does not provide further explanation and simply states, "based on the codes, we are required to secure additional power support to essential facilities."
Section 406(e) of the Stafford Act allows FEMA discretionary authority to contribute to the repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public facility on the basis of the design of the facility as it existed immediately prior to the disaster, or if a Federal, State, or local repair or replacement standard requires changes to the predisaster construction of a facility. FEMA may fund those changes (upgrades) if the standards meet the criteria set forth in 206.226(b). Here, however, even if City Hall was functioning as an EOC at the time of the disaster, the City has failed to show that an emergency generator is required by any code or standard related to an essential facility, or the construction or repair of such a facility. Therefore, because no generator existed prior to the disaster, the installation of the generator was not required as a result of the disaster, as necessary for eligibility according to 44 CFR 206.223(a)(1). The appeal is denied.
Please inform the applicant of my decision. In accordance with the appeal procedure governing appeal decisions made on or after May 8, 1998, my decision constitutes the final decision on this matter. The current appeal procedure was published as a final rule in the Federal Register on April 8, 1998. It amends 44 CFR 206.206, which constitutes the final level of appeal in accordance with 44 CFR 206.206(e).
Sincerely,
/S/
Lacy E. Suiter
Executive Associate Director
Response and Recovery Directorate
cc: Christina Lopez
Federal Coordinating Officer
Northridge Long-Term Recovery Area Office