SAFER ACT a reality?

[Bones42]

it is obvious that the fire service would be a critical factor in the response to a disaster

response to the disaster, not prevention of it, not security from it....simply response to it.

the local governments will have to eventually step up and figure out a way to retain any new firefighters hired through the grant.

and this is why I don't believe SAFER act will be any great news. They'll cut their budgets by the amount they can get from SAFER, and when the SAFER runs out, they still won't increase the budget back to where it was before SAFER.

[ThNozzleman]

But I put my debate forward without any personal attacks on you. Too bad you couldn't do likewise.

Personal attack?? Give me a break; I stated an opinion, nothing more. To me, you are ignoring the facts. Simple and direct,yes, but far from a "personal attack."

[ThNozzleman]

response to the disaster, not prevention of it, not security from it....simply response to it.

Once again, when an agency contains and controls an incident, it is PREVENTING further damage and harm from being done.

and this is why I don't believe SAFER act will be any great news. They'll cut their budgets by the amount they can get from SAFER, and when the SAFER runs out, they still won't increase the budget back to where it was before SAFER.

That's exactly why I stated that I hope there are stipulations in the grant requirements that prevent local governments from doing this, just like the Fire Act rules state.

[Bones42]

The only stipulation that I can recall from reading was that it was for 5 years, but you only get money for the first 4 years and the 5th is all on their own. No mention of a 6th, 7th, 8th, etc.

[ThNozzleman]

I guess we'll just have to wait for the details. Hopefully, a local government can decide if the can come up with the extra money to maintain the new-hires within the four year period. If they don't think that it's possible, they should refrain from applying for the grant in the first place. They should be made to have a plan in place to retain these new firefighters, before they are allowed to continue in the process. In other words, if they can present a solid, four/five year plan to absorb the entire cost of the firefighters that are hired using the grant to SAFER staff, then they can proceed. If they are not willing to do that, then they shouldn't get the grant, in my opinion.

[captstanm1]

Bones...I think there is a stipulation on the maximum amount per person, but I am not sure if there is a limit to the "Number of people." I am sure I could find it if I had the entire bill to look at.

I see it passed the senate, now all they have to do is find the funding. My thoughts tell me they will be overwhelmed by the response/requests for funding once it becomes law. I know it is already on the desk of our city manager and city clerk.

[neiowa]

Originally posted by ChiefReason
A maximum of $100,000 per firefighter? I realize that salary and benefits add up, but 100K?CR

My quickie spreadsheet for this stupid porkbarrel legislation is that a fixed salary/cost of $66666 per year would max out the $100k grant cap. Fed portion of $46666, $33333, $13333, $6667, 0 = $100000

Call your senator/congressman to appropriate ZERO $ to this thing. No appropriation and no program.

[ThNozzleman]

Call your senator/congressman to appropriate ZERO $ to this thing. No appropriation and no program.

I'm on the phone right now...NOT.

[Bones42]

I would not look to kill this either. I'm not sure it will be anything great, but at least it's a start. There are other areas of the Act besides hiring firefighters.

[SPFDRum]

Just eliminate the moneys for the fire departments and give it ALL to the cops. If they do all this prevention and security, then we won't need the extra fire services response to mop up the mess. So why fund them?

[captstanm1]

I know that this is all speculation and some people think it is just smoke and mirrors to pacify the Fire Service. But it seems to me that it is a reality and if President Bush signs it then we should take advantage of it.

As I said...My department is looking at it already as I am sure that the money will be doled out based on justification but also I am sure some of it will be "who gets there first." We are running 8-11 calls per shift with a minimum/maximum of four (4) people and no mutual aid from the county and it is dangerous. I think that once the city gets the grant, buy the end of the program the money will begin to come in from the recent annexation that increased the size of the city by 50% as well as money from other proposed annexations. This will be a stop-gap measure to increase staffing and enhance safety for our department as opposed to a hostile takeover by the county fire department.

If I was to call anyone (Senator or Congressman) I would be calling to plead for support.

[DaSharkie]

This will be a stop-gap measure to increase staffing and enhance safety

Precisely my point. A stop gap with no overall improvement in the long term.

[ThNozzleman]

Precisely my point. A stop gap with no overall improvement in the long term.

We'll see, I suppose.