The Applicant has not clearly identified the work and associated costs it is claiming to repair damage to the exterior of its Facility, and it has not demonstrated that the work is required as a result of the disaster. Therefore, this appeal is denied. Appeal Letter SENT VIA EMAIL W. Nim Kidd, MPA, CEM Chief Texas Division of Emergency Management Vice Chancellor – The Texas A&M University System 2883 Highway 71 East P.O. Box 285 Del Valle, Texas 78617 Joseph Guillory Executive Director Housing Authority of the City of Port Arthur 920 DeQueen Boulevard P.O. Box 2295 Port Arthur, Texas 77640 Re: Second Appeal – Port Arthur Housing Authority, PA ID: 245-0B539-00, FEMA-4572-DR-TX, Grants Manager Project 335346/Project Worksheet 228, Result of Declared Incident Dear W. Nim Kidd and Joseph Guillory: This is in response to Texas Division of Emergency Management’s (Recipient) letter dated September 3, 2024, which transmitted the referenced second appeal on behalf of Port Arthur Housing Authority (Applicant). The Applicant is appealing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) denial of $440,368.01 for repair costs associated with claimed damages to Park Central Apartments (Facility). As explained in the enclosed analysis, I have determined the Applicant has not clearly identified the work and associated costs it is claiming to repair damage to the exterior of its Facility, and it has not demonstrated that the work is required as a result of the disaster. Therefore, this appeal is denied. This determination is the final decision on this matter pursuant to 44 C.F.R. § 206.206, Appeals. Sincerely, /S/ Robert M. Pesapane Director, Public Assistance Enclosure cc: George A. Robinson Regional Administrator FEMA Region 6 Appeal Analysis Background From August 23 through August 27, 2020, Hurricane Laura impacted the state of Texas, resulting in a Presidential major disaster declaration on December 9, 2020. Port Arthur Housing Authority (Applicant), a special district government, requested reimbursement under FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) program. FEMA developed a Damage Inventory (DI) for 33 buildings (32 residential apartment units and one office/community building) at Park Central Apartments (Facility). The DI notes damages, or the lack thereof, to each building ranging from “none noted by visual inspection” to “damage to roof systems caused by high winds” with various percentages of missing roof shingles covered by tarps.[1] FEMA prepared Grants Manager Project 335346/Project Worksheet 228 for the Facility, documenting total claimed costs of $116,300.00. The Applicant concurrently initiated an insurance claim and inspected the Facility with an independent insurance adjuster. The Applicant did not proceed with the insurance claim and no insurance estimate was prepared because the Applicant and the insurance adjuster agreed that the minimal damage observed was not near the applicable named storm deductible for each building.[2] Further, the Applicant retained two independent consultants, STOA Architects (STOA) and Trinity Roofing & Restoration (Trinity), to assess Facility damages. The consultants provided reports dated June 10, 2021 (STOA) and November 13, 2021 (Trinity). On December 3, 2021, FEMA reviewed the Applicant’s DI, consultant assessment reports and photographs, and prepared a site inspection report (SIR) for each building.[3] The SIRs noted that the Facility’s buildings either had no visible roof damage or had blown away or missing shingles throughout the roof, with tarps covering between 2 and 40 percent of roof areas. The SIRs also noted damaged flashing, ridge vents, and plumbing boots on some roof slopes. FEMA issued a Determination Memorandum (DM), denying $116,300.00 for all claimed damages to the 33 buildings of the Facility.[4] FEMA stated that the Applicant did not provide documentation to demonstrate that the claimed damage to the Facility was a direct result of the declared incident and indicated that the roof damage was possibly the result of subsequent unrelated storms that occurred between September 2020 and November 2021.[5] First Appeal By letter dated September 15, 2023, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s determination, stating the amount in dispute was $440,369.01, rather than the $116,300.00 stated in the DM. The Applicant based its appealed amount on the cost estimate in the Trinity report to repair the Facility’s various interiors and the previously identified exteriors, including the majority of the roofs, playground canopies, and building siding. The Applicant stated it had provided adequate documentation and photographs to demonstrate disaster-related damage and the justification for each item claimed. The Applicant further contended that the roofs could not have been damaged by subsequent incidents, as no specific wind or rain event was severe enough to affect commercial asphalt shingles during the timeframe noted in the DM. The Applicant submitted copies of the STOA and Trinity post-disaster assessment reports, as well as a damage summary indicating estimated costs associated with individual damage items in the Trinity report. The Applicant stated it had secured a contractor to complete the work, and it submitted a scope of work (SOW) and cost proposal from Texas Coast Lone Star (Texas Coast), dated June 22, 2022, as well as a payment ledger and supporting contractor invoices and cancelled checks. The SOW and cost proposal was for reroofing five buildings and removing and replacing existing shingles for other buildings, at a total cost of $167,730.00. The work included replacing rotten decking and structural beams, installing underlayment, drip edges and roof vents, and fees and permits. The additional documentation indicated that the Applicant had paid Texas Coast $173,275.00 for the work, after several change orders. Finally, the Applicant provided a record of tenant calls for predisaster interior maintenance.[6] Following its review of the Applicant’s documentation, FEMA noted the Applicant did not provide documentation that demonstrated the claimed damages were the result of the declared incident or supported the amount of damages in dispute. FEMA noted the discrepancy between the $440,369.01 amount in dispute and the $173,275.00 paid to Texas Coast for the work. On November 22, 2023, FEMA sent a Request for Information (RFI) to the Recipient and Applicant, specifically seeking clarification of the extent of proposed disaster-related work completed and to be completed based on the provided documentation, including roof repair invoices and proposals. Following several approved time extensions, on January 19, 2024, the Applicant responded to the RFI and stated that no specific wind and/or rain event occurred post-disaster that would cause damage to the roof system; roof maintenance was not necessary on a roof system that was within the shingle manufacturer’s recommended lifespan; and the cost of the work to be completed on the Facility, as noted by the independent assessments, was an estimated amount. The Applicant stated that the actual cost would be based on a properly procured project, along with any subsequent change orders. The Applicant also provided purchase invoices for post-disaster roof tarps and damaged siding coverings.[7] On May 15, 2024, the FEMA Region 6 Regional Administrator denied the appeal. FEMA found that the Applicant did not provide documentation to support that the claimed damages and associated repair costs, totaling $440,368.01, were a direct result of the incident. Second Appeal By letter dated July 22, 2024, the Applicant appealed FEMA’s denial, reiterating its first appeal arguments, but clarifying that it is only seeking repairs for claimed exterior damages, which based on the documentation provided on first appeal total $332,843.01.[8] The Applicant contends the historical storm patterns show the other weather events were not strong enough to cause the extent of roof and exterior damage demonstrated by the photographs and two reports previously provided. In addition, the Applicant asserts that, based on the claimed damages, FEMA should have performed an on-site property inspection rather than a “tabletop review” of the Applicant’s documents to prepare the SIRs. In a letter dated September 3, 2024, the Recipient transmitted the second appeal to FEMA with its support. Discussion FEMA may provide PA funding to a local government (which includes a special district) for the repair of a public facility damaged by a major disaster.[9] To be eligible, work must be required as a result of the declared incident.[10] It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide documentation to substantiate its claim as eligible and to clearly explain how those records support its appeal.[11] The documentation should provide the “who, what, when, where, why, and how much” for each item claimed.[12] If the applicant does not provide documentation to support its claim as eligible, FEMA cannot provide PA funding for the work.[13] To be eligible, costs must be directly tied to the performance of eligible work.[14] The Applicant is requesting funding for permanent work to its Facility’s buildings. On first appeal, the Applicant claimed $440,369.01 in costs, based on the damages listed in the Trinity report, and it provided a damage summary with a cost breakdown for both interior and exterior building repairs. On second appeal, the Applicant has indicated that it is no longer claiming costs for interior repairs, but it has not stated an amount in dispute or provided any additional documentation regarding claimed damages or its proposed SOW.[15] Based on the exterior repair estimates in the damage summary provided on first appeal, FEMA infers that the Applicant is claiming $332,843.01 on second appeal. However, the Applicant’s documentation does not tie this amount to a SOW, include specific damage descriptions that can be used to develop an eligible SOW, or clarify the extent of proposed disaster-related work completed and to be completed. The Trinity report and its damage summary recommend total roof replacement for six buildings (Buildings 6, 10, 15, 24, 26, and 29)[16] and list other buildings with more limited damage, and no roof replacement needs. However, the report does not provide specific damage descriptions or dimensions (beyond general descriptions such as “[w]ind damages found on slopes”),[17] and it does not provide any description of the types and quantities of materials needed to address those damages. Without documentation clearly demonstrating the “who, what, when, where, why, and how much” for the Facility, FEMA is unable to determine eligibility of the work or its associated costs. The Applicant also submitted a Texas Coast proposal, along with documentation showing that the Applicant has paid Texas Coast $173,275.00 for that work, after agreeing to multiple change orders. But the Texas Coast documentation does not contain any damage descriptions for the work at issue. Furthermore, the Applicant has not tied the Texas Coast SOW to the claimed damages in the Trinity report or clarified how the $173,275.00 payment to Texas Coast relates to the $440,369.01 cost estimate from the Trinity report’s damage summary. The Texas Coast SOW addresses roof replacement for five buildings (Buildings 10, 15, 24, 26, and 29) and shingle repairs for an unspecified number of additional buildings (described as “Shingle Roof Storm Damage Repairs”), but it does not break down its total costs in any further detail by showing costs for each building or work/damage item.[18] In addition, the Applicant’s documentation either does not substantiate claimed damages or does not demonstrate that the proposed work is required as a result of the disaster. FEMA acknowledges that there was damage caused by the declared incident and provided PA funding in a separate project for the temporary tarps to cover the areas of damage. However, the Applicant’s documentation does not support the Applicant’s claim for any other exterior damages to the Facility and associated costs and does not demonstrate that replacement of any Facility roof is required as a result of the declared incident. For example, the STOA assessment report contains photographs taken from ground level with an explanation that any roof damages which were visible were noted in the report.[19] However, FEMA’s review of the STOA photographs reveals no additional evident damages. The STOA report also noted that the office building roof showed significant external damage which was covered by a temporary tarp. While the photographs provided with the Trinity report do show that several buildings have relatively small areas of their roofs covered with temporary tarps, neither the STOA report nor the Trinity report provides a description of the damages covered by the tarps. As noted, the Trinity report does contain limited damage descriptions, such as “wind damage found on slope.” However, the Trinity report does not provide any further information to validate those claims or clarify the extent of those damages. Therefore, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the work to repair its claimed damages is required as a result of the disaster. Conclusion