•FEMA Firehouse Grant Application Analysis

Link to UCityCitizen.org >HOME<

<DOWNLOAD or VIEW included attachments at bottom of page>

FEMA FIREHOUSE GRANT APPLICATION ANALYSIS

Prepared and submitted by:

Gregory Pace

7171 Westmoreland Drive

University City, MO 63130

314-7XX-XXX0

Missouri Professional Engineer: License # XXXXX9

Civil Engineering graduate of the University of Missouri - Rolla: 1978

*******************************************************************

University City, Missouri submitted application EMW-2009-FC-03208

(see fireHouseGrantApplication.pdf) for a Fire Station Construction

Grant with FEMA on 7/5/09. The grant request is to replace Engine

House #1 located at 6801 Delmar with a new structure to be located

at 6601 Vernon.

On 10/2/09 FEMA made a first round SCG grant award to University City

in the amount of $2,612,197:

http://www.emsgrantshelp.com/official-announcements/595154-DHS-announces-round-1-of-Fire-Station-Construction-Grants/

The grant application to FEMA states on page 10 (items 1 & 2) that the

purpose and reason for the request to build a new fire house is that

engine house #1 is "unsafe and uninhabitable" because it is

"structurally unsound." This is significant in that the SCG guidelines

(see 2009SCGguidance.pdf) state on page 4 that the highest funding

priority will be given to "replace unsafe or uninhabitable structures

regardless of whether the project calls for the construction of a new

building or the rehabilitation of an existing structure."

As regards the claims of "unsafe and uninhabitable" and "structurally

unsound" I present the following:

1) A Regional Fire Services Study:

http://www.ucitymo.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=1171

was prepared by Emergency Services Consulting International (ESCI)

and released in November of 2009 which declares (regarding Engine

House #1) on page 187 (see fireStudyPg187.jpg) that "This station

is an older structure that is reasonably well kept..." and that it

is "Masonry construction with a flat composition roof reported to be

in fair condition."

2) The community development department will not back the assertions

made in the FEMA grant application (see lines 41 & 42 -

rigantiEmail.rtf). Ms. Riganti is the Director of the Community

Development Department and is the head building code official for

University City. The Community Development staff agrees with the

assertion of ESCI that engine house #1 is "reasonably well kept"

(see lines 164 & 165 - rigantiEmail.rtf).

3) No structural engineering report exists to support the claim that

Engine House #1 is "structurally unsound" (confirmed by recent

sunshine requests of both myself - see sunshine1.pdf and Ms. Paulette

Carr - see sunshine2.pdf). The only structural engineering review of

engine house #1 (see fireHouseFloorReport.pdf) in the last 20 years

was made in 2007 and was concerned only with the apparatus bay floor.

As a result of this analysis and recommendation (which cost $11.5K;

see tao1.pdf) the apparatus bay floor was rebuilt at a cost of $140K

(see floorRepair.tif). University City does not neglect its

infra-structure (also see annexRoof2.pdf).

4) The fire department requested and received a property maintenance

inspection of engine house #1 (see inspection.pdf) on June 10, 2009.

The 8th item down on the second page is "CONCRETE BEAM DETERIORATED"

and is the only citation that even remotely implies any structural

issue. In an email exchange with Ms. Riganti (see

rigantiEmail2.pdf) she classifies this "DETERIORATION" as

cosmetic as no engineer ever inspected the beam (property maintenance

inspectors are not engineers) and no follow up by her department was

conducted. Ms. Riganti would be derelict in her duty if she did not

follow up on a documented claim that a building under her purview was

structurally unsound unless, of course, she knew that claim to be

lacking in substance. Engine House #1 is operational. It has not

been condemned by University City.

The grant application to FEMA on page 21 speaks of "deterioration

of our roof and trusses" yet the fire study (see fireStudyPg187.jpg)

reports "a flat composition roof reported to be in fair condition."

I have not been inside engine house #1, but I don't believe that

any trusses exist (deteriorated or not) to support its flat roof.

The roof was replaced in 2008 (see annexRoof2.pdf) at significant

cost. Also, I have observed the roof from above (5th floor of

city hall) and could see no issues whatsoever.

The grant application to FEMA states on page 21 that "We have

structural damage to our foundation columns that supports the

building." When Tao & Associates (see fireHouseFloorReport.pdf)

did a structural analysis of the first floor slab in May of 2007 you

can be certain that they evaluated the support structure of the

slab. No mention was made of any foundation or foundation column

damage or concerns.

The grant application to FEMA states on page 21 "The exterior

tuck pointing is bad..." and "...signs of a building shift..."

and "...the building has shifted or possible become unstable."

On 5/4/10 I inspected the exterior of engine house #1. I sighted

down the course lines of the masonry and everything appeared

straight and true. I could find no evidence of mortar failure or

uneven settlement. The foundation walls (looked to be coursed

ashlar) appeared to be in great shape. The exterior brick wythe

appeared to be in excellent shape also.

The grant application to FEMA states on page 11 (item 6e) that

University City will make a cost share contribution of $200,000 to

the project. As regards this cost share offer, University City placed

a bond issue authorization (Proposition P) on the ballot this past April.

The city mailed a brochure in support of Prop P to all citizens prior

to the election. The brochure (see propP.jpg) states that $200K would

be spent on "New fire station furnishings and equipment" but the FEMA

grant program does not allow the grant match (cost sharing) to be

used to purchase "furnishings" nor equipment for "firefighting,

personal protection, or exercise" (see pages 10 & 11 -

2009SCGguidance.pdf).

The grant application to FEMA states on page 21 that "extensive mold"

exists in the engine house. Ms. Riganti's email of April 30th

(see lines 169 & 170 - rigantiEmail.rtf) states that remediation has

been implemented. Also note on page 10 (item 2a) of the FEMA grant

application that no "order to vacate" or "health code violations"

exist.

The grant application to FEMA states on page 27 that activity at

Delmar-Harvard "often" delays response time and that a new fire house

would not have this problem. But engine house #1 will not be

dealing with this issue much longer as the University City School

District had clearly signaled in early 2009 that D-H was to be closed

(see delmarHarvard.jpg).

The grant application to FEMA states on page 25 that "...with relocation

we can decrease our response times to all area of our city..." I have

taken a zoning map of University City (see UcityZone.tif) and marked

our two (2) existing engine houses (#1 & #2) and also marked the

location of the proposed replacement site for engine house #1 with an X

so that the veracity of this claim may be judged.

The grant application to FEMA states on page 23 that "It (the proposed

firehouse location at 6601 Vernon) has better access to a public street

where we could pull right out and respond." Vernon is a 2/4 lane

east/west St. Louis County arterial road that runs from the eastern

city limit 1.25 miles into University City. Existing engine house #1

is located at 6801 Delmar where an electric light is installed to

facilitate ingress/egress by emergency vehicles. Delmar is a 4 lane

east/west St. Louis County arterial road that runs 3.5 miles through

University City, city limit to city limit.

http://www.stlouisco.com/hwyweb/Publications/ARS/ARS_2010-04-01.pdf

The grant application to FEMA states on page 23 that "Our city owns

property in a much more suitable area for a fire station..."

University City does not own the property at 6601 Vernon. Washington

University owns this property (see 6601VernonRealEstateData.jpg).

The plan is for a long term lease as I understand it.

The grant application to FEMA refers to a building inspection on pages

22 & 23. Specifically, the engine house was stated to have 58 violations.

An inspection of Engine House #1 was requested of the Community

Development Department by the Fire Department and was carried out on

June 10th, 2009 (see rigantiEmail2.pdf). The resulting property

maintenance inspection report (see inspection.pdf) is comprised

of 54 line items (not 58). As a civil engineer, a registered

professional engineer, and one who completed course BIC 102

(Housing Inspection) in the fall of 2008 at Forest Park Community

College in which the 2006 edition of the International Property

Maintenance Code was covered in its entirety I feel qualified to

comment on this inspection report. I believe that the following

twenty (20) line items (of the 54) are not violations of the code:

Item 1 (mortar damage) was not evident to me upon visual inspection

of the building's exterior on May 4th, 2010. The brick coursing

appeared straight and true. Mortar and brick appeared to be in

good physical condition.

Item 5 (air register missing) is not a violation of section 603.1 of the

code as this section only applies to appliances.

Item 6 (commercial range installed within 18" of combustables) is not a

violation that I can discern. Section 603.3 does not specify dimensions.

One must refer to the manufacturer specification. Did the inspector

have a copy? As an example, Dacor ranges only require 10 inches of

side clearance to a combustible wall and the wall behind the range

from cook top to hood must be non-combustible.

Item 16 (electric circuits installed without permits) is not a safety

violation. The statute of limitations is 1 year in Missouri.

Item 18 (laundry sink improperly installed [s trap]) is not specifically

listed as a violation of section 504.1. If s traps were allowed when

the sink was installed, a p trap is not a required retrofit.

Item 19 (provide impact protection for gas dryer) is not specifically

listed as a requirement of section 603.1. I also could not find this

requirement in the fuel gas code.

Item 20 (evidence of mold) is not a violation. There either is mold

or there is not.

Item 22 (concrete beam deteriorated) is not a violation of section

305.2. As previously noted the damage was only cosmetic as

confirmed by Ms. Riganti (see attached rigantiEmail2.pdf).

Item 28 (base molding missing) is not a violation of section 305.1.

You can't dictate taste. Missing molding is not a safety/health

issue.

Item 30 (evidence of roof leak) is not a violation. If the roof or

flashing were damaged or comprimised that would be a violation.

The inspector didn't even inspect the roof (see attached

rigantiEmail.rtf lines 166 & 167). And why would the inspector

check the roof as it was rebuilt in the prior year (see

annexRoof2.pdf)?

Item 36 (GFCI protected receptacle outlet lacking in bathroom

[single restroom]) is not a violation. You are not required to

retrofit unless new construction takes place.

Item 37 (inadequate water pressure at showers) is not a violation of

section 505.1 per se. What is improper about the plumbing?

Item 39 (screen lacking) is only a violation if the bath does not

have an exhaust fan.

Item 40 (evidence of mold at air supply) is not a violation as item

20 was not.

Item 41 (evidence of roof leak) is not a violation as item 30 was not.

Item 42 (evidence of water seepage) is not a violation of section

304.5. Stone foundations in dense clay were never intended as

water barriers.

Item 46 (wall shows evidence of water damage) is not a violation. Is

the exterior wall free of holes, breaks or loose or rotting material

as written in the code (section 304.6)? The evidence cited may have

no relationship to the exterior wall. Inspectors should concern

themselves with actual violations and not maybes.

Item 49 (evidence of rodent infestation) is not a violation. Either

there is rodent infestation or there is not. Besides the basement is

used by the police department (see attached fireStudyPg187.jpg).

Item 53 (wall shows evidence of leakage & is moldy) is not a violation

of section 304.5 as item 42 was not.

Item 54 (obtain approval on all open permits) is not a violation but

merely a reminder to get permits.

Of the remaining items:

There are 12 cited electrical problems.

Five violations for permanent use of extension cords.

Four violations for damaged or improper wiring.

One violation for a blocked panel.

One violation for a damaged outlet.

One violation for an open junction box.

These could be remedied for under $5000.

The fire pole was cited twice (or that is what I'm assuming items 4 & 25

refer to).

Cited for missing an $8 smoke detector in the sleeping area.

A violation for a propped open fire door.

A violation for an exit being blocked.

And so on. All small stuff and easily remedied for little dollars. I

captured four (4) violations in a picture (see 4violations.jpg) that I

took on 6/10/10 that are fairly representative. Items 11 & 13 (rusted

iron pipe in front of gas meter with basket on top), item 12 (rusty

gas line), and item 17 (railing missing from retaining wall on left)

are depicted.

And besides the total number of violations being wrong, the summary

of violations provided on pages 22 & 23 in the FEMA grant application

is quite inaccurate. I can elaborate if needed.

It should be noted that the Community Development Department did not

make a single follow up visit (see rigantiEmail2.pdf) and has no idea

if any of the violations have been corrected. One (1) year after

the inspection we know for sure that items 11,12,13,17 (see

4violations.jpg) have not been corrected. One can only speculate

as to why the property inspector was not required to enforce the

property maintenance ordinance on an occupied building. I know of

no other property owner in University City who was allowed to ignore

cited violations. At least not for *real* inspections.

<DOWNLOAD or VIEW included attachments at bottom of page>

Link to UCityCitizen.org >HOME<

Copyright 2010 UCityCitizen.org. All rights reserved.

• UCityCitizen.org • Paulette Carr, Ward 2 Councilmember, City of University City • University City, Missouri 63130 •