70/30 or 60/40 ???

[TriTownship600]

With all the concerns about too little money for too many departments, would it have been better to go to 60/40 matching funds? Or 70/30?

Even if it was 80/20 for the small departments and 70/30 for the larger ones, (tenative funds included), it would make an additional $50 million to spread around.

How many departments would have set their sights a little lower for concerns of matching funds thus lowering the total funding requested, thus allowing more departments to be awarded?

Don't get me wrong 90/10 is great if you are awarded the funds. I just think that sometimes a half a loaf of bread is better than none at all.

Am I wrong here?

[Flochief]

I personnally think the way it is now is the most fairest to all. This way some of the under budgeted larger depts can get something also. I was also glad that you could only apply for one thing. This enabled more funds to be spread around this year.
I realize this is a new grant but we need to learn to adapt, impervise and overcome all of the snags that are there when applying for this grant.

[timm1960]

In our grant application, we offered to pay 23%(6yrs saving + a match from city)and the government pay 77%. We are only obligated to match 10%, but thought that this would give FEMA more bang for their buck. Have not heard anything yet. Fingers are crossed.

GOOD LUCK:p

[ffpm43]

We requested only a little over 10K in fire prevention equipment, requiring a $1000 investment from our department. As the requests for funding increases, maybe there should be a barometer of percentages the asking town should be able to contribute. Asking for 250K at the 90/10 is a little like stealing. Contributions should reflect some of what the community can afford. The importance in conducting a good community inventory, prior to making our wish lists, would be very apparent, and the USFA loves to hear about community inventories and thier relevance to the overall fire problem.
Good Luck to all, still waiting to hear!