supplemental funds

[bukstpsear]

I was just curious about the supplemental funds from 2004. All that recieved those funds were they given a dear john letter or a wait and hold letter. Basically were they told that it was over last year only to find a Santa's present stuck in the chimney.

Any insight would be appareciated.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Since the competitive bid process usually lets people buy what they applied for at a lower price, there is money left over. They can then either 1) buy more of what they asked for up to $5000 worth and spend the rest on Fire Prevention, 2) spend it all on Fire Prevention, or 3) send the money back.

Since no one knows until the end of the 12 month performance period is up how much money might be available, they'd rather deny people than make them miss the next application period.

And I'd say finding money stuck in the chimney is a good thing. Others find nothing, or dead critters.

[onebugle]

How many of these departments that are recieving supplemental grants from 2004, applied for the same project this year? Which means that this year is a lost year. The feds are not going to give them grants for the same thing twice.

There has been considerable discussion on how the DJ's are announced and when.

Maybe it's time for the feds to revisit this issue. If a department does not make it past computer scoring, notify them immediately, but at least by the first round of awards.

As for departments that make it to peer review, that are competitive, but do not make it to funding the feds should provide a ranking in regards to supplemental funds.

"If supplemental funds become available your department is ranked #1, #50, or #1102 etc. to recieve funding for your project."

These departments can now make an educated decision on whether to pursue the current project or develop a new one. The departments can look at the website to see how many supplemental grants have been awarded from previous years to determine if they have a chance.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Usually if the department is up for an award this year (which they know about already) then they give them the option of taking either one if they asked for an identical project. If they take the previous year, then someone from this year gets bumped down the list. If they opt for the current year, then they move on to the next person in line there.

If there's a difference between the two, and this year they're going to be awarded also, then they'll give them the monies for the things that were in the previous year that weren't in the current year.

I agree, it's not the best feature of the program, but since the Performance Periods are 12 months, and you have all 12 to spend the money, what then? Force the departments that were awarded to spend all of the money no matter what so there is no leftovers? Or make them spend it all within 6 months? That won't work well either I don't think, haste makes waste.

I say put the money towards the next year's program, but that would require some changes in the laws to allow money to pass from one budget year to the next.

As for departments that make it to peer review, that are competitive, but do not make it to funding the feds should provide a ranking in regards to supplemental funds.

"If supplemental funds become available your department is ranked #1, #50, or #1102 etc. to recieve funding for your project."

That is what's done now. The original scoring list stays active, so when they start to get money back, when they get enough to fully award #1, they contact them. As they get more, they move on down the line in order. As people refuse the supplemental, the dough keeps rolling.

[onebugle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no way for a department to find out what their overall ranking is. We were awarded in the second round. It tells me that we ranked on the high side, but I'll never know what our true ranking is amongst the others whether 1 or 401 etc.

"If supplemental funds become available your department is ranked #1, #50, or #1102 etc. to recieve funding for your project."

Add this type of info to the DJ's so a department makes an informed decision on what their next step will be.

I say put the money towards the next year's program, but that would require some changes in the laws to allow money to pass from one budget year to the next.

I guess I'll play devil's advocate. It makes sense to move the funds to the next year's program, but this will penalize department's from recieving supplememntal funds. How many of the department's that are getting supplemental funds from 2004, did not apply in 2005 or denied this year. More awards will be made, but at who's expense.

The system is not perfect. There is room for improvement, but I guess that will have to come from the fed level.

[BC79er_OLDDELETE]

Correct, you won't find the real ranking, but with the exception of this year and awarding the vehicles at the same time in ranking order as the equipment awards, you can make an ed-ju-ma-cated guess. So if they give out 400 equipment awards in Round 1, you were one of the top 400. So on and so forth.

[bukstpsear]

Thanks for the info, I appreciate it.