1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,748

    Default Reauthorization of the AFG Program

    The following was posted at Firehouse.com about the AFG and the proposed changes to the various programs.

    http://cms.firehouse.com/content/art...Id=12&id=66107

    REAUTHORIZATION OF
    THE ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM


    ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS – Maximum of three percent of appropriated funds for administrative costs
    REMAINING 97% TO BE DISTRIBUTED ACCORDINGLY
     Combination Fire Department – 25%
     Career Fire Departments – 25%
     Volunteer Fire Departments – 25%
     Other – 25%
    o 10% minimum -- Prevention/Firefighter Safety/Research (includes Centers of Excellence)
    o 2% maximum -- Volunteer non-fire service EMS and Rescue
    o 3% maximum – Fire Service Training Academies
    o 10% -- competitive between Volunteer, Career, and Combination departments

    MATCH
     5% for jurisdictions with populations under 20,000
     10% for all others
     Create a waiver for financial hardship. Request that the Administration develop the criteria for granting a waiver.

    GRANT CAPS
     $9 million for jurisdictions with population > 2.5 million
     $6 million for jurisdictions with population between 1 million and 2.5 million
     $3 million for jurisdictions with population between 500,000 and 1 million
     $2 million for jurisdictions with population between 100,000 and 500,000
     $1 million for jurisdictions with population under 100,000

    PREVENTION, RESEARCH AND SAFETY GRANTS
     $1.5 million cap per grantee for prevention, research and safety grants per year (includes Centers of Excellence)
    o National fire service and fire safety organizations may apply for a traditional Fire Prevention and Safety grant and also may partner with a university to apply for a Center of Excellence award. No national organization can apply for more than one Center of Excellence award.
     Remove match requirement for fire departments

    MAINTAINENCE OF EXPENDITURES
     Amend current maintenance of expenditures provision to require applicants to maintain budgets at 80% of the average over the past two years

    OTHER PROVISIONS
     Retain other changes proposed in the draft bill prepared by fire service organizations that was discussed at the House Science and Technology Committee hearing on July 8, 2009. These changes address:
    o Creation of Centers of Excellence
     The Centers of Excellence in Fire Safety Research would be joint programs between national fire service organizations and regionally-accredited universities designed to establish long-term, comprehensive, applied research programs to reduce fire-related property loss, and deaths and injuries among firefighters and the general public. The groups agreed to the development of 2 – 3 centers of excellence funded at $1.5 million per year.
    o Eligibility for State Fire Training Academies
    o Firefighter health and safety research and development
    o Expand training to include firefighting, emergency medical services...
    o Certification of fire and building inspectors employed by fire departments or serving as a volunteer fire or building inspector with a fire department
    o Prioritization of grant awards based on call volume and populations served – include report language clarifying this is only codifying current practice
    o Adherence to national voluntary consensus standards that address training and equipment purchasing
    o Include report language clarifying that paid on-call/stipend should be considered as combination departments

    REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SAFER GRANT PROGRAM
     National fire organizations can apply for volunteer recruitment and retention grants
     Three-year funding requirement by local jurisdictions
     Twenty percent match by fire department over three-year period
     Remove $100,000 cap per firefighter hired using SAFER funds
     Include a hardship waiver
     Include maintenance of expenditure language from above

    REAUTHORIZATION FUNDING LEVEL AND TIME PERIOD FOR AFG AND SAFER
     FIRE Grants – Reauthorized for five years at $1,000,000,000/year
     SAFER Grants – Reauthorized for five years at $1,194,000,000/year
    October 5, 2009
    Last edited by onebugle; 10-13-2009 at 06:14 PM.

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    75

    Default

    I will support any iniciative that increase available funding. Because here the Local OEM, receive all the money from DHS and none is given to the Fire Deparment because we are a state agency with 94 fire station and they claim they are the "Local Government" that the grant guidance is refering to, so no money for the Fire Department all is for the OEM's that only do rescue and are second due on any CBRNE or IED incident they have received many million dollars us 0... so in short words i'm glad that they are considering to increase funding.

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    358

    Default Grant Funding

    If your OEM is hoarding the funding, I would contact your elected officials (county commissioners, state legislators, etc.) who oversee the OEM at the county or state level. Explain to them your needs and why you need a share of the funding.

    I have seen fire departments that had almost no equipment, while the county DES/911 Directors were making $48,000 to $50,000 a year. Seen this in two counties here.

    If you do not raise the issue, then the money will be funneled elsewhere. See if you can get a copy of the OEM budget and see where the money goes. You may find instances of projects that were non-essential or duplication. Justify why the fire service needs a portion of the money.

    Hopefully, DES and Fire Act Grant funding will continue in the future. Right now, the Federal Gov't is borrowing $3 Billion Dollars a DAY from foreign countries (treasury bills, etc.) and paying $800 Million Dollars a DAY in interest on the Federal Deficit. The spending party that our Federal Gov't is on will come to an end. It may not look good for emergency services when the funding is decreased or eliminated.

  4. #4
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Yes but the good part is that sentiment is increasing towards keeping the money here instead of sending it overseas since we're not getting any benefits to the billions sent to certain countries that stab us in the back and whatnot.

    Looks like reauthorization to 5 years is a good thing, so is the $1 billion amount on each year.

    The sticky part is the hardship waiver and what the qualifications come out to be. A lot of career departments don't get approval to apply no matter what the matching is, so do a lot of others. Max project amount increases are interesting though. Make sense for the few that need massive SCBA replacement.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Well I guess thats good I was under the impression they where going to make it a hell of alot harder for volunteer fire departments to get the grant. When is this going to take affect Brian? the 2010 AFG?

  6. #6
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigFD14 View Post
    Well I guess thats good I was under the impression they where going to make it a hell of alot harder for volunteer fire departments to get the grant. When is this going to take affect Brian? the 2010 AFG?
    No that would be 2011 and beyond since 2010 funding levels are already in place. Plus they're dealing with enough changes to the 2009 SAFER to last for right now.

  7. #7
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    I of course want to see the extension. I off course see some disparity again in the proposed figures based on numbers. If they base it on numbers again, then do the breakdown based on the total number of fire department types/classifications in the country. The bulk of the country's departments will be awarded less funding in the formula proposed. Maybe even switch year from year to cover both ends of the spectrum. I also brought up a formula based on other factors of consideration such as which area has received the most government funding per ca pita over the last 5 years and set the ones receiving the less at the top for consideration. I also brought up an even more abstract but equally honorable numbers measurement earlier. How about consideration for the order in which the states citizens donated the most to charity and base it on those numbers. Many would also consider that as fair when it comes to making an argument for a funding breakdown. Why not I say? It cannot always be broke down based on number of population, forever as that is not always going to end up being a fair measurement.
    I say the proposed numbers are biased for career departments as was forewarned by one of the Fire Acts author Dr. Harry Carter.

    I see nothing in the proposal except taking funds from arena of the volunteer demographic. Even the cash match has dropped in the highest population as if the saying their population cannot come up with more. Someone say why plainly.

    Guys, I am just making an argument from the other side of the fence here. Nothing personal.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PRRESCUE View Post
    I will support any iniciative that increase available funding. Because here the Local OEM, receive all the money from DHS and none is given to the Fire Deparment because we are a state agency with 94 fire station and they claim they are the "Local Government" that the grant guidance is refering to, so no money for the Fire Department all is for the OEM's that only do rescue and are second due on any CBRNE or IED incident they have received many million dollars us 0... so in short words i'm glad that they are considering to increase funding.
    OK, so inquiring minds want to know? Where exactly are you? Something sounds really fishy, get a little more specific on details and some of us in here may be able to share some interesting facts that you should be aware of but, we can't do that unless you let us know where you are in the pecking order and geographically.
    Kurt Bradley
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ktb9780 View Post
    OK, so inquiring minds want to know? Where exactly are you? Something sounds really fishy, get a little more specific on details and some of us in here may be able to share some interesting facts that you should be aware of but, we can't do that unless you let us know where you are in the pecking order and geographically.
    Our county OEM is so underfunded they seem on the verge of starting fundraising efforts themselves. We are poor, but feel sorry for them, so yes further specifics would be interesting.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Well what he is saying just does not make much sense to me. Their OEM could be applying on behalf of those departments if they are considered the controlling authority but, the equipment would still have to be going to the actual FDs. I am sure they are not just storing equipment in a warehouse or something but it sounds to me like their OEM is not even applying to AFG at all.
    Kurt Bradley
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    No discussion/mention of split for vehicles vs. ops/equipment? 1/2 of that should be going to vehicles.

    A $BILLION + TO SAFER???? There's your payoff to the unions. What's the detail for how that is going to work? Feds pay 100% of a local payroll?

  12. #12
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    No discussion/mention of split for vehicles vs. ops/equipment? 1/2 of that should be going to vehicles.

    A $BILLION + TO SAFER???? There's your payoff to the unions. What's the detail for how that is going to work? Feds pay 100% of a local payroll?
    25% max to truck remains, this was just the change points for discussion. Matching being waved would be a separate appeal process from the looks of it, doubt that will be very easy to get. No one is really in favor of that becoming the norm because otherwise turns it into a welfare system and just delays the staffing reductions by 5 years if the local area can't afford to take on the costs slowly over the POP. If they can't do that they can't afford 100% of year 6. Same reason the 4 year no match wasn't included as part of the Stimulus Package for 2009 SAFER. There are enough problems happening nationwide that no one wants to give anyone else a free ride on anything. Matching is the way the applicant's area takes some responsibility for making improvements, so as long as that remains there is less complaining from those that aren't funded. If it was all free money then the fighting would be worse than it is now.

    Think about a previously happy family with a rich uncle that dies and how nasty that will reading gets when the money isn't divided how everyone thinks it should be...

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ktb9780 View Post
    OK, so inquiring minds want to know? Where exactly are you? Something sounds really fishy, get a little more specific on details and some of us in here may be able to share some interesting facts that you should be aware of but, we can't do that unless you let us know where you are in the pecking order and geographically.
    I sent you a E-Mail..

  14. #14
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    No discussion/mention of split for vehicles vs. ops/equipment? 1/2 of that should be going to vehicles.

    A $BILLION + TO SAFER???? There's your payoff to the unions. What's the detail for how that is going to work? Feds pay 100% of a local payroll?
    Still interesting though isn't it?

    At least the AFG program is taking steps to continue. The longer it is breathing, the better the chances are to at least make efforts to effect change within the program or at least gather some of the crumbs from the proposed format.

    BTW does anyone know where we can get data/demographics relating to the fire service? Such as number of calls per thousand of population? That sort of information. Would the Fire Administration have that to share?

    Wonder if those departments feeling left out will still feel the urgency to keep it membership trained to NIMS, ICS, or NFPA 1001? At least the case now about saving FF's lives will be based on each departments determination to continue those certifications instead of the Federal agencies holding the carrot of funding in front of them if they increase their certifications. We know how important it is for those volunteers to achieve those to keep their jobs.

  15. #15
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    USFA has reports on some of that information you're looking for, may have raw data on the other information. DHS has some but you have to either pay programming fees to cover their database people's costs for running a custom report or try and get raw data. Not sure the latter works very well.

    NIMS isn't really a question about keeping up to date on the certs, that's required by law in all 50 states. Just like CA dropping those without physicals and Wildland certs from major incidents the same can happen with lack of NIMS certs. Local jurisdiction has to be on board with NIMS since they have to adopt it legally as the ICS in the coverage area. It's really not that hard, I did 800, 100, and 200 on Monday in about 2 hours through the online testing portal at training.fema.gov. It's IC at the core with different terminology. So being able to get NIMS certified isn't the nightmare that some claim it to be. Firefighter 1 on the other hand is. That's why it's nice to see Fire Academies being able to go after up to 3% of the money. Too many schools have been taking the dregs of equipment from those lucky enough to replace their own equipment so for those lucky enough to have a place to train the equipment is broken or so old it's not even relevant anymore. The Centers of Excellence I'm still digesting, can't get a read on the purpose of them quite yet. Will worry about that when FP is over next week and I have some time to chat with folks.

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    No discussion/mention of split for vehicles vs. ops/equipment? 1/2 of that should be going to vehicles.

    A $BILLION + TO SAFER???? There's your payoff to the unions. What's the detail for how that is going to work? Feds pay 100% of a local payroll?
    I had wondered about the possibility of them pushing a 40-60 spilt on trucks/Ops but, does not seem to be in the cards I am reading right now either.
    Kurt Bradley
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  17. #17
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Just posted after happening yesterday:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The FIRE Act grant program reauthorization came another step closer to approval Wednesday when a House subcommittee agreed America's first responders need money to help protect their communities.

    Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) introduced the House Resolution that was co-signed by 48 other members of Congress.

    The measure passed favorably by voice vote, according to Alex Snider, committee spokesperson.

    A full committee markup hearing on the bill is set for Oct. 21. The public may attend, but will not be permitted to speak.

    In a prepared statement, Mitchell said: "This bill helps ensure that our firefighters have the tools and resources they need to prevent and fight fires and keep us safe. It will provide support to firefighters in stations and houses throughout the nation from large cities to small towns. While we can never thank our firefighters enough, we can work to ensure that they are equipped and prepared for their lifesaving work."

    The committee agreed that AFG should be authorized for $1 B per fiscal year from FY2010 to FY2014.

    In addition, SAFER should be provided an authorization of $1.194B for fiscal year from FY2010 to FY2014

    The committee also specified the following requirements for SAFER:

    It sets the grant at three years (with the requirement that the department retain the hire for the entire three-year grant period).
    It sets the matching requirements at 20 percent per year of the grant.
    It eliminates an artificial cap on the maximum allowable grant size per firefighter.
    It includes an economic hardship waiver for departments that are unable to meet the matching requirements or maintenance of budget requirements.
    It also provides waivers for requirements that departments use the fund to supplement, rather supplant, local funds, as well as the requirement that the funds be used to hire additional firefighters rather than retain existing personnel.

    Committee members also tentatively approved the proposal submitted by the major fire service organizations about how the money should be divided, the match requirements and caps.


    The drop to 20% and 3 Years will make SAFER a whole lot more accessible to those that need the boost. And I like the sound of $1 billion a year for AFG.

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Correct me if I'm wrong but From FY 2010 to 2014 means that this will be in place for next year AFG?

  19. #19
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PRRESCUE View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong but From FY 2010 to 2014 means that this will be in place for next year AFG?
    I think that's a typo because the 2010 AFG and SAFER have already been authorized and funded. This would be Fiscal 2011-2015 because we're in Fiscal 201 right now. The changes to SAFER might be in for 2010 as far as the 3 year/20% match part but the funding level has already been set at $420mil.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Which sub-committee is that? I understand there are concerns according to press releases on Oct. 14th. -Congressman Adrian Smith, ranking member of the House Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, on October 14th offered an amendment ensuring rural areas will continue to have adequate access to Department of Homeland Security fire grant programs.
    I am sure there will be continued watchfullness, especially if we again see transfers of the funding again from the AFG to empower areas favorable to the administation. Easier to transfer funds already created.

  21. #21
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jam24u View Post
    Which sub-committee is that? I understand there are concerns according to press releases on Oct. 14th. -Congressman Adrian Smith, ranking member of the House Technology and Innovation Subcommittee, on October 14th offered an amendment ensuring rural areas will continue to have adequate access to Department of Homeland Security fire grant programs.
    I am sure there will be continued watchfullness, especially if we again see transfers of the funding again from the AFG to empower areas favorable to the administation. Easier to transfer funds already created.
    Beats me, was a copy off of an article on here on .com. Haven't bothered to look it up, handling FP apps.

  22. #22
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Congressman A. Smith has been particularly watchful of the AFG and even bringing firefighters to testify before committees to promote the extension of the AFG. Understand his position has always been to extend the AFG, but anticipates proposed changes to the present version before final vote on the floor. Though the proposed changes may instead become in effect after the first year of the extension. Told their main attention of course is on healthcare coming from the senate, but anticipates many states to want a second look at the distribution since there are already programs geared towards urban areas.

    Whatever happens the passing of any extension is what is needed.

  23. #23
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jam24u View Post
    Congressman A. Smith has been particularly watchful of the AFG and even bringing firefighters to testify before committees to promote the extension of the AFG. Understand his position has always been to extend the AFG, but anticipates proposed changes to the present version before final vote on the floor. Though the proposed changes may instead become in effect after the first year of the extension. Told their main attention of course is on healthcare coming from the senate, but anticipates many states to want a second look at the distribution since there are already programs geared towards urban areas.

    Whatever happens the passing of any extension is what is needed.
    Only one I can think of is allowing for unused funds in one category to be transferred to the open competition allocation. Even at 10% many career still won't apply and even though their requests for 2008 were $500mil which will be above the proposed $300mil a lot of those looked like trucks which is capped as it should be. So personal thought is that if a review panel marks an app as unworthy of funding no matter what, then even if there is money in the section allocation the funding should be given to someone else that at least scores well. Otherwise we're not filling needs, just handing out money because no one else asked for it, against the principles of the program.

    And yes a lot of funding is being funneled into urban areas but a lot of that is for hazmat, bioterrorism, etc. Not the basics. I know a few departments full of brand new fancy stuff for what terrorism might come, but their PPE is falling apart. And because of the program rules they can't spend it on anything else. That's why they really need to look at some of those other programs that aren't getting the apps and request amount totals and readjust the funding levels of those other programs. If people aren't asking for the funding by putting in apps then the funding is obviously not needed in those categories.

  24. #24
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Long time no Sea
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    The funding being funneled into urban areas I was referring to were not just from fire service programs. Again I, cautiously, refer back to funding per capita and the efforts to throw money at those situations that will never be resolved. That is another related issue, but still part of the problem.

    (got my Fire Rescue magazine in this morning and this issue of volunteer vs. career funding issues appears in the Nozzlehead section.)

  25. #25
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    http://science.house.gov/press/PRArt...px?NewsID=2644

    Technology and Innovation Subcommittee held a markup to advance H.R. 3791, The Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009

    Subcommittee Members
    Democrats:

    David Wu (Oregon),
    Chair

    Donna F. Edwards (Maryland)
    Ben Ray LujŠn (New Mexico)
    Paul D. Tonko (New York)
    Daniel Lipinski (Illinois)
    Harry E. Mitchell (Arizona)
    Gary Peters (Michigan)

    Bart Gordon (Tennessee),
    ex officio

    Republicans:

    Adrian Smith (Nebraska),
    Ranking Member

    Judy Biggert (Illinois)
    W. Todd Akin (Missouri)
    Paul Broun (Georgia)

    Ralph M. Hall (Texas),
    ex officio



    If you think more needs to go the vehicles (obviously true) the place to make that happen is in the full committee markup. Any of the following your congressman? Carries more weight if a constituant calls.

    Committee on Science and Technology - Committee Members in the 111th Congress
    BART GORDON (Tennessee), Chair
    •Jerry F. Costello, Illinois
    •Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas
    •Lynn C. Woolsey, California
    •David Wu, Oregon
    •Brian Baird, Washington
    •Brad Miller, North Carolina
    •Daniel Lipinski, Illinois
    •Gabrielle Giffords, Arizona
    •Donna F. Edwards, Maryland
    •Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
    •Ben Ray LujŠn, New Mexico
    •Paul D. Tonko, New York
    •Parker Griffith, Alabama (Vice Chair)
    •Steven R. Rothman, New Jersey
    •Jim Matheson, Utah
    •Lincoln Davis, Tennessee
    •Ben Chandler, Kentucky
    •Russ Carnahan, Missouri
    •Baron P. Hill, Indiana
    •Harry E. Mitchell, Arizona
    •Charles A. Wilson, Ohio
    •Kathy A. Dahlkemper, Pennsylvania
    •Alan Grayson, Florida
    •Suzanne M. Kosmas, Florida
    •Gary Peters, Michigan
    •(vacancy)

    RALPH M. HALL (Texas), Ranking Republican Member
    •F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin
    •Lamar Smith, Texas
    •Dana Rohrabacher, California
    •Roscoe G. Bartlett, Maryland
    •Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
    •Frank D. Lucas, Oklahoma
    •Judy Biggert, Illinois
    •W. Todd Akin, Missouri
    •Randy Neugebauer, Texas
    •Bob Inglis, South Carolina
    •Michael T. McCaul, Texas
    •Mario Diaz-Balart, Florida
    •Brian P. Bilbray, California
    •Adrian Smith, Nebraska
    •Paul Broun, Georgia
    •Pete Olson, Texas

    Contact info: http://science.house.gov/about/members.shtml
    Last edited by neiowa; 10-16-2009 at 01:54 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Program Manager / Deputy Program Manager wanted.
    By CJthePJ in forum Hiring & Employment Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-09-2009, 05:40 PM
  2. EFO Program
    By ccrpntr in forum Career Advancement
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-14-2007, 12:20 PM
  3. how is your program run??
    By concordfire in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-01-2006, 12:18 AM
  4. New Exploring Program... I need help starting this program up!
    By ChoffaJFD in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-26-2006, 10:25 PM
  5. how is your program run??
    By concordfire in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-18-2006, 07:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register