Editorial: Response to IAFC Comments
Firehouse.com's coverage last week of a proposal by industry groups to alter matching requirements for FIRE Act grant recipients has generated heated discussion among readers and industry leaders.
The proposal suggests making the match 15 percent across the board for all communities. This would reduce the current match for large communities (with populations greater than 50,000) from its current 20 percent, but would increase the match for small communities (populations of 20,000 or fewer) from the current 5 percent, and increase the match for medium populations (20,000 to 50,000) from the current 10 percent.
A major question came up regarding the IAFC's position on the proposal. Firehouse.com stands by its initial report that the organization put its name behind the proposal at last week's Congressional hearing for grant program reauthorization. Firehouse.com also reported on the IAFC's independent proposal that Congress create a waiver for jurisdictions that cannot meet these local match requirements.
However, in a notice to IAFC membership that was widely circulated on the Web last Friday, the group reported that they are with the IAFF, CFSI and NFPA in support of the proposal to reduce the match for communities of greater than 50,000 from 20 percent to 15 percent. However, they say that unlike the other groups they do not support the increases for smaller and medium communities.
IAFC Chief Jeffrey Johnson directed Firehouse.com to find this language in the group's written Congressional testimony, available online. "What our stated position is, on all that -- is that it's implied in the written testimony that the other matches stay as they are."
However, this position is not discussed or implied in the testimony; only the waiver for economically challenged jurisdictions is discussed in regard to matching requirements.
In light of the conflicting information, Firehouse.com stands by its initial reporting but does wish to assist the IAFC in clarifying its ultimate position that it does not support raising the match for jurisdictions serving smaller populations. "That's what our position is and has been," Johnson said.
Related: