Private Nonprofit

Appeal Brief

Summary Paragraph

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration for the State of California with an incident period of January 20, 2020, to May 11, 2023. Children Country & Lives (Applicant), a Private Nonprofit (PNP), submitted its Request for Public Assistance (RPA) as seeking Public Assistance (PA) program funding. FEMA issued a Request for Information seeking documents to confirm the Applicant owned or operated an eligible facility. The Applicant declined to respond. FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying the RPA because the Applicant did not demonstrate that it owned or operated a facility or that it provided an eligible service. The Applicant submitted its first appeal asking FEMA to approve its RPA because it worked with an emergency food assistance program. The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Recipient) emailed the Applicant to clarify ownership of its facility, the work performed, and the costs claimed for reimbursement. The Recipient did not support the appeal after reviewing the additional information. FEMA Region 9 Regional Administrator denied the appeal. FEMA determined that the Applicant did not demonstrate that it owned or operated an eligible facility that provided eligible services. The Applicant submitted its second appeal stating that it misunderstood the facility for which it should submit documentation. To support its second appeal, the Applicant provided a general partnership agreement with St. John the Baptist Catholic Church in King City, California, which it claims is a lease that provides it the authority to operate the facility for its distribution programs. The Recipient transmitted the second appeal stating it does not support it.

Authorities

• Stafford Act §§ 102(11)(B), 403, 502.
• 44 C.F.R. §§ 206.221(e), 206.222(b), 206.223(b), 206.225(a). 
• PAPPG, at 11, 13, 15.

Headnotes

• To be eligible for PA funding, a PNP applicant must own or operate an eligible facility. 
  • The submitted general partnership agreement does not demonstrate that the Applicant owns or operates an eligible facility.

Conclusion

The Applicant did not demonstrate that it owns or operates an eligible facility. Therefore, the appeal is denied. 

Appeal Letter

Appeal Analysis

Background

The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a major disaster declaration in the state of California, with an incident period of January 20, 2020, through May 11, 2023.[1] Children Country & Lives (Applicant) is a Private Nonprofit (PNP) that provides communities with charitable donations and basic necessities and offers programs protecting the beauty of nature and spiritual growth.[2] The Applicant submitted a Request for Public Assistance (RPA) to FEMA but did not specify the COVID-19 work it performed. In support of its application, the Applicant submitted a letter from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service granting it 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, a rental agreement for storage units, documentation related to a Small Business Administration (SBA) economic injury loan, and undated photographs with no explanation of what was demonstrated.[3] FEMA issued a Request for Information on March 10, 2022, seeking documentation showing that the Applicant operated or has legal responsibility for an eligible facility. The Applicant declined to provide the requested documentation.[4] On June 14, 2022, FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum denying the Applicant’s RPA because it did not demonstrate that it owned or operated an eligible facility or that it provided eligible services.

First Appeal 

The Applicant submitted its first appeal on August 1, 2022, requesting FEMA approve its RPA because the denial was contradictory to FEMA’s mission as the population the Applicant served was primarily a low-income Hispanic population. First, the Applicant noted it worked with The Emergency Food Assistance Program,[5] an emergency food assistance program. Second, the Applicant provided monthly audit logs that showed it distributed household items, clothes, school supplies, holiday items, and Christmas gifts at a location in King City, California. 

On August 10, 2022, the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Recipient) emailed the Applicant to clarify the location of its food distribution work and its reimbursement needs/expenses. The Applicant explained that it used St. John the Baptist Catholic Church (Church) in King City, California for its monthly distribution work (e.g., distributing blankets, clothes, shoes, jackets, and storable dry foods). The Applicant explained it was requesting Public Assistance (PA) funding for back rent, payroll reimbursement, damages to buildings and equipment, and repayment of loans. In its September 14, 2022 transmittal to FEMA, the Recipient stated that the Applicant showed it participated in a noncritical essential social service (i.e., a food assistance program), however, it noted the Applicant did not demonstrate that it owned or operated an eligible facility. As such, the Recipient did not support the Applicant’s appeal.

On July 13, 2023, FEMA Region 9 Regional Administrator denied the Applicant’s first appeal. FEMA determined that the Applicant demonstrated that it is a PNP, but it did not demonstrate that it owned or operated an eligible PNP facility from which it provided eligible noncritical, essential social services.

Second Appeal

The Applicant submitted its second appeal in a letter dated August 15, 2023. The Applicant clarified the primary location used for its distribution work during the COVID-19 pandemic was the Church parking lot. In support of its appeal, the Applicant submitted a Certificate of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation to change its corporate name; a general partnership agreement (Agreement) between the Applicant and the Church; and an undated letter of appreciation from the pastor of the Church. The Agreement, which the Applicant claims is a lease for space owned by the Church in King City,^[6] was effective on July 1, 2016, and first executed on August 17, 2017.^[7] Per the Agreement, the Applicant used the Church’s Hall Event Room for its work and with the onset of COVID-19, it used the outdoor “recreational area, parking lot.”[8] The Applicant asserts that it operates the Church-owned space from which it provided noncritical essential social services to underserved populations.^[9] On September 22, 2023, the Recipient transmitted the Applicant’s appeal stating it does not support the Applicant’s second appeal. 

Discussion

FEMA is authorized to provide assistance for emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety.[10] To be eligible for PA funding, a PNP applicant must own or operate an eligible facility.^[11] For PNPs, an eligible facility is one that provides an eligible service, which includes education, utilities, emergency, medical, custodial care, and other essential social services.[12]

The Applicant submitted the Agreement to show that it operated the Church’s Hall Event Room prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Agreement merely demonstrates that the Applicant and the Church formed a general partnership to facilitate the Applicant’s provision of programs and community events year-round. The primary purpose of the general partnership formed under the Agreement was the Applicant’s provision and delivery of “essential Social Service Programs to Monterey County’s Disadvantage [sic] Communities.”^[13] The Ownership Interests noted in the Agreement describe each party’s interest (and intention) in the partnership, not in the Church’s Hall Event Room or its parking lot.[14] Under the terms of the Agreement, the Church has the discretion to provide the Hall Event Room or any other location for the Applicant’s distribution work.[15] The Recipient points out that the Agreement does not provide any specific financial obligations, expectations, or agreements from the Applicant to the Church in leasing or maintaining the Church-owned space. As such, the Agreement does not demonstrate the Applicant owns or operates an eligible facility (i.e., the Church). 

Conclusion

The Applicant did not demonstrate that it owns or operates an eligible facility. Therefore, the appeal is denied.