1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default Fire grant equipment scenario

    Not my town.

    Rural town FD with a rural district. Disfunctional relationship between mayor/council and FD. FD is fed up, chief, all officers, troops resign. FD received a AFG 3or 4 years ago for SCBA, turnout gear, compressor. Grant was to city so, I assume title/ownership is by the city (who now has no FD). City is going to have to do something. Likely contract with neighboring town.

    Rural township pulls service contract with the city and establishes/reestablishes township FD. New township FD has a "building" with old/usable pumper (as good as what they had last week), FEPP tanker capacity etc. Big problem is lack of PPE/safety equipment.

    How is AFG going to look at a fire grant this coming cycle from a new fire dept that did not exist Feb 1, 2006? Need would certainly exist/good grant narrative.

  2. #2
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

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

    Default

    As long as they are incorporated as a 503c and providing fire suppression services to a specific area where another FD does not cover, then no problem applying.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Tensed Idaho
    Posts
    27

    Default Interesting, but not uncommon

    Uncle Sam still has a very large vested interest in the unused/ misused equipment from an AFG grant. And Uncle Sam can cause a department or former department to forfeit that equipment to a department that is covering the same mission/area/function.

    I have heard of a department being visited by a panel of DC's program specialists to check on misuse/nonuse of equipment and or vehicles.

    So if you want to cause a bit of ruckus, contact the regional AFG grant guru and inform them that the department does not exist and make them follow thru on it.

    The newly formed department may end up with the equipment unless the City has plans, like immediate plans for the use and upkeep. There is a easy remidy for this it is called a Memorandum of Understanding. The city can let the new department use the equipment AT NO COST. (Uncle Sam likes it when we play nice) And dont call it a lease!!!!!(he aint no fool)

    Stories like the ones here are why FD loses funding on Capitol hill. The feds dont like to be made a fool of either. We need to make sure our ducks are in a row and we are following what Uncle Sam tells us to do: contrary to popular opinion these grants we are getting are meant to last longer than a few years. Yes the stuff is ours, but we shouldnt sell it at the end of the grant cycle to pay for the paint job on the parade unit.

    Take it for what its worth, departments are still losing equipment because of a lack of follow thru or a misuse of equipment (from back in '01 I believe)

    Stuff like this irks me. I dont want to see the AFG being investigated by a national news agency for waste and corruption. This has been a program by firefighters, for firefighters and it can be saved or ruined by them as well.

    If you want more specifics, contact me off forum.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Marion, Mississippi
    Posts
    144

    Default

    Not trying to hijack the thread, but, what if the department (501c3) was the recipient (not the town) of AFG funds and there is a break between them and town. If the contract is pulled, and the VFD is "cut loose".
    Say the town then contracts with neighboring larger city's paid dept.
    Then could not the department take the equip and join with neighboring (read mutual aid) Volly department to keep it in service as intended????

    Just a thought since we get the "threat" ever time we need or ask for money.

  5. #5
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

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

    Default

    The equipment belongs to the recipient if they are a separate 501C. So the local government can't boot the department and keep the stuff. After all, its easy enough to argue that the "new" department brought in probably wouldn't have been competitive for the project and couldn't have gotten it funded, so even though the award was meant to benefit the citizens, it was only given because the department protecting them was in need.

    Sounds like y'all have a politician problem over there. Pure numbers say that a volunteer department is less expensive to run with greater personnel strength, so unless the sky is green where you're at they haven't even looked at the financials of bringing in the neighboring department. That's just another empty threat used as a scare tactic. My department only pays for 60 hours of coverage a week, part-time, no benefits: $1.1 million in salaries for 14 guys on 3 boxes & 2 pumpers. Well worth it in our situation, not affordable in most areas. They have obviously never done the math.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Every FD in Iowa (as far as I know) is either a city FD (usually contracted by the surrounding townships to also provide rural fire protection, or a very few rural only township FD.

    Apparently the AFG in question was 03 so closed out and the equipment stays with the city. AFG rep instructed to former chief to immediately inform the program if the city attempted to sell any of the grant property.

    Part of their fire grant was for an SCBA fill station and grant specified that was also for the benefit of a neighboring FD. AFG apparently directed that the fill station be relocated to the neighboring FD.

    What is situation with grant equipment? If it becomes excess or obsolete can you sell it? Supposed to send the proceeds back to the feds??? That would be a paperwork nightmare.

  7. #7
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

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

    Default

    The performance period for the program is 3 years from date of award, so you can't make any budget changes for that amount of time. Certainly selling the equipment isn't part of that at any point. The award is meant to benefit for "years to come" so there shouldn't be anything bought that becomes obsolete anytime soon.

    And they probably won't make anyone sell it and give them the money, they'll take it and give it to someone else. Or keep it in a stockpile like the ones that were opened up after the hurricanes hit.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 10-15-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 07:43 AM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 10-12-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-16-2005, 10:44 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 09-04-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-05-2005, 10:44 PM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 03-14-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-16-2005, 10:14 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 03-18-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-19-2004, 01:49 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