Wisconsin Town Sends SAFER Grant Back To Feds
Updated: 12-16-2005 01:59:34 PM
E-MAIL THIS STORY PRINT THIS STORY
New Podcast: Preliminary Facts in the Recent LODD of Pennsylvania Fire Instructor Robert Gallardy
Join Billy Goldfeder & special guest Ed Mann. Ľ More Shows
Upcoming TrainingLIVE Webcast
Fire Apparatus 2006:
What We Are Doing Right & Wrong!
January 25, 2006 - 2pm(ET)
Mike Wilbur & Tom Shand
Register Free Today - More Webcasts
Get Local with Firehouse Network
Get the latest news, department links, forum discussions, job listings & more by state.
Select Your State and Click:
Select State: Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Conn. Delaware. D.C. Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Okla. Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming A Wisconsin fire department that won a $600,000 Department of Homeland Security grant will have to find another solution to its staffing problems after the city voted to reject the funds.
The Franklin Common Council voted unanimously against accepting the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant, citing a number of financially restrictive conditions coupled with general budget concerns.
"Bottom line," Franklin Mayor Thomas Taylor said, "the city would have had to raise taxes by $1.7 million" to cover salaries and benefits for the six new firefighters the grant would have allowed the department to hire. He added that in the current municipal climate, a hefty tax hike is not an option.
Without the SAFER grant, the Franklin Fire Department and the Council will continue looking for new staffing options. The firefighters union has already agreed to start talks with the city regarding contracts for three new firefighters; however, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Local 2760 President John Young said the membership is unlikely to agree to make many concessions.
"The [SAFER grant] would've been a good opportunity to fill our needs," Franklin Chief James Martins said. Though he was disappointed with the Council's decision to reject the grant, he said the department is exploring ways to add firefighters to its already stretched ranks.
"At least the door's open" -- for union-city contract discussions -- "we're glad about that," Martins said. The city hopes to negotiate retirement benefits before hiring new firefighters.
"We applied for the grant because we don't meet state and federal staffing requirements," Martins said. He added that the department currently serves 32,000 people in a 34.5-mile area.
Martins said that in the past year or so the department has seen response times increasing along with a growing population. Additionally, developers have added about 2,200 new structures to the city since 2002, including retirement communities that put more pressure on EMS resources.
Right now, the department relies on mutual aid to cover calls when its crews are tied up. With demands on fire and EMS personnel likely to become heavier in coming years, the department understands it must beef up its ranks.
Aside from hiring three new firefighters, the department is considering an apprenticeship programs in which new EMTs are brought on to work for a specified period of time. Under the program, the department would pay salaries with no, or limited benefits; in exchange, apprenticing EMTs gain experience to help them get full-time positions with other departments.
"[The apprentices] would be limited. But they can do things like pull hose, run EMS calls," Martins said.
The department and city also considered a SAFER grant option to hire 12 part-time firefighters paid hourly, on-call wages. Martins said they ultimately decided against that plan because in addition to training and outfitting costs, DHS would require 28 hours per week of service from those firefighters to maintain funding. If DHS requirements weren't maintained, the department would lose the grant.
"I didn't want to put us in that position," Martins said of the part-time option, adding that those firefighters could leave at any time to take a position with another department. Additionally, that plan would face resistance from the union.
The main factor cited for rejecting the grant is the matching funds requirement.* Under the SAFER program, the department would have been required to phase in the salaries and benefits costs for its new firefighters over five years.
The council said that aside from losing state funding for exceeding spending limits, it wouldn't be able to pay the increasing costs not covered by SAFER.
According to the DHS Web site, "Departments winning federal assistance for hiring are expected to pick up the entire tab after four years. ... During the first year, the grant pays 90 percent of the costs of a firefighter's salary up to $36,000." The next year, DHS would pay 80 percent, followed by 50 percent and ending at 30 percent.
DHS has $65 million for 2005 SAFER grants. For FY 2006, the department will have $110 million.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3
12-16-2005, 08:16 PM #1
Exsqueeze me I baking powerdered !!! :(IACOJ both divisions and PROUD OF IT !
Pardon me sir.. .....but I believe we are all over here !
ATTENTION ALL SHOPPERS: Will the dead horse please report to the forums.(thanks Motown)
RAY WAS HERE 08/28/05
LETHA' FOREVA' ! 010607
I'm sorry, I haven't been paying much attention for the last 3 hours.....what were we discussing?
"but I guarentee you I will FF your arse off" from>
12-16-2005, 08:25 PM #2
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
Wow thats a lot to read...
12-16-2005, 10:24 PM #3Wow thats a lot to read...
Back to the topic,
I just read the front page article, and it has got to hurt to turn that kind of cheque back in.
I can theoretically understand the cities position. You can't just accept 6 new FF's based soley on a one time payment. Those FF's would need millions in compensation over the next few years, and it may honestly not be in the budget.
I hope it's not just a spite thing however, where the city is just mad that the FD decided to do this on thier own.
Anybody got the inside scoop?Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By captstanm1 in forum The 9-11 TragedyReplies: 0Last Post: 07-09-2002, 01:12 AM