1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,745

    Default SAFER.....Another Waste of Funds

    http://www.eagletribune.com/latestne...m-as-grant-cut

    With an award of over $6 million that money could have been spent more wisely elsewhere.

    What could have that purchased under AFG?

    20+ pumpers

    1100 SCBA

    2400 complete sets of PPE

    667 TIC's

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    SLY4420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,974

    Default

    The article continuously makes FEMA sound like the bad guy for "not deciding to renew" this grant award, almost as if it was expected.

    The 2010 SAFER Program Guidance required a two-year POP with commitment that a third year would be funded and firefighters retained. That would be through 2013.

    Time to cross that bridge!

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,716

    Default

    Looks like a rope bridge with a frayed set of connections. This is going to be the norm on SAFER too, no more repeat awards since the 1st one should have a solid plan of continuation in it in the first place. After all it's what the Financial Need section is looking for in order to score well. Several other cities are going to be in the same boat within the next year.

    Pretty much why SAFER needs to go back to the 5 year reduced matching program so that those with true needs for growth are funded, not welfare situations. That would cut it about in half for the funding need, so doing so would put another $100mil into the AFG program and avoid cuts to any other grants. There's where the $104mil can come from. Still prefer taking it from foreign grant programs since we don't need to hand welfare out to other countries.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    EMT6126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Byrdstown TN>
    Posts
    177

    Default

    Maybe one day they will realize that public safety cannot be compromised. Jeff
    I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    firefighter7136's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Manson, IA
    Posts
    16

    Default

    The worst thing I took away from the story is that no one in the city seems to understand the purpose of the grant. They look at it as if it should be ongoing funding. Did not a single person in the department or city read the program guidance. To top it off they are going reapply next year with the expectation of being awarded.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    1,716

    Default

    If they can, remember the restrictions on empty positions are more specific now so they'd have to be laid off before the app period closes to be eligible. Rumor has it that the app period for SAFER might come before AFG, and even if it doesn't they'll both be done by August. And same thing will probably happen, this was one of the most advertised/discussed repeat awards for the same positions since they were funded to get these same positions the first time and needed the 2nd award to keep them. So obviously the Peer Review wasn't about to fund them a 3rd time for the same people, don't see that changing in the 2013 Review process. I'm sure there is more money to be found that can get cut up there on top of the voting machines. Just like the WH claiming we need to reduce military and other first-responders thanks to sequestering, I'm pretty sure if we cut off the handouts to all sorts of folks that aren't making an effort to contribute to society we'll find more money. Like no welfare/unemployment for those that test positive for illicit subtances. If you aren't working, and test positive for drugs, tax dollars paid for them since that's the only source of money. And that needs to stop yesterday. Either go to rehab, and I have no problem with tax dollars paying for that once, or no more welfare. Relapse, and no more anything on the taxpayer's dime. Bad decisions should not be rewarded.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    WJVaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Dickson TN
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    yep. It definitely sounds like someone did not read the fine print about that 3rd year. Oops
    I also wonder why it took so long to get everybody back. The way I read it they just finished rehiring the last of the folks.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,745

    Default

    The original grant was to rehire 23 laid off FF's (not all went back) and hire 15 FF's to fill vacancies. The LFD FF's are civil service FF's meaning the process is not at all speedy.

    The bigger issue is the financial impact to other communities that hire civil service FF's as well. When these FF's are laid off they go onto a statewide layoff list. Any community that hires subsequently has to hire from the layoff list before moving on to the regular list. What this means those departments are spending thousands of $$$$ for medicals, uniforms, PPE etc. with no guarantee they will stay. If the FF's leave to return to LFD (as the case previously) the department hiring that laid off FF must start the process again with the same expenses.

    As SAFER stands right know it has the potential to hurt more departments than the good it does saving positions. Accountability has to be put back into the program.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    islandfire03's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,586

    Default

    the problem is, Lawrence is subscribing to the great hogs at the trough theory. Someone from the govt will always bail us out when we screw up.. There never was a plan in place to keep the safer funded positions when they applied for the federal $$$.
    The folks at the top of the food chain just assumed the money would be renewed forever.What they were hoping for was that the politicians would be able to keep the trough full.

    Ted Kennedy is gone and that ain't happening any longer.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    EMT6126's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Byrdstown TN>
    Posts
    177

    Default

    I would like to read their "Sustainability" portion of the previous grant. Just wandering what they said they was going to do when the "Trough" was empty.Just curious.
    Jeff
    I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    LVFD301's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,954

    Default

    SAFER has some really good stuff available, but I fear the Hiring portion is fraught with issues. Don't throw out the program entirely - just get it back to where it is not such a handout.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Excess Funds for SAFER Grant
    By volfireman034 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-29-2012, 10:22 PM
  2. SAFER Funds
    By onebugle in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-03-2012, 12:43 AM
  3. SAFER funds
    By JTFIRE80 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 12:23 AM
  4. Haz Waste fire
    By GeorgeWendtCFI in forum Indiana
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-25-2006, 10:15 AM
  5. government waste
    By larrycook in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-27-2001, 10:31 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