Fire Dept. to possibly turn down grant

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by strtcopr on January 24, 2009 at 11:44am

That's not the context in which savable was used in one of your replies....Anyway...you should run for office...you've got an answer for everything and you're always right...I love guys like you...risk-benefit analysis' .....IAP's...........pocket protectors and calculators....you'd think that ...ah nevermind...it's not worth the time....Pretty fancy talk coming from a guy who was crying that a large percentage of dept.'s there can't get an engine with more than 3 people to show up to save their own lives....You'd think by the way you tout Hilton Head..that they'd have their act together to have the funds to pick up the costs of nine potential hires....Oh well...I don't vacation there anyway

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on January 24, 2009 at 1:31pm

strtcopr,

There are several inaccuracies in your statement above.

The "large percentage of dept.'s there" are your words, not mine.
You need to stop putting words in my mouth, then acting as if I said something that I did not.

The context in which I used "savable" was in one specific instance.
You, on the other hand, refused to even attempt to define the word yourself - telling.

Most of the lifesaving in South Carolina - and most of the rest of the United States is done on EMS calls, not at fires. Three people per unit is plenty to save most of those lives. Like every other fire-rescue department, Hilton Head sends how ever many units are required to handle an incident - fire, CPR, extrication, whatever. The number of firefighters at an incident are not a function of how many ride a specific unit. It's simply a function of how many firefighters are dispatched.

Hilton Head, like everywhere else, has to live within its budget.
That has nothing to do with either the town or the fire-rescue department "having their act together". Hilton Head - not you - gets to choose whether or not they want to accept a SAFER grant and the strings and financial obligations that go with it. Ditto for Minneapolis, in a very similar SAFER grant situation - one on which you've been pretty silent.

Conducting a risk-benefit analysis prior to interior firefighting and developing and using an IAP is a national standard. Your ridicule of departments that meet those national standards is pretty telling. The entire point of conducting a risk-benefit analysis is to be smart and alive instead of dead and (maybe) heroic.

Another one of your inaccuacies is that there was "crying" involved. I was simply stating the facts as they exist. The likely crying is going to be the families of firefighters who conduct knee-jerk interior attacks because "we're an aggressive department". The crying will be done at the subsequent LODD funerals. I've been to way too many of those.

I'm happy to work for a fire-rescue department that gives good value for the budget, conducts master planning, has a strong fire prevention program, has a sprinkler ordiance that works and is enforced, is considered a "low risk" for fire loss, is Internationally Accredited, and averages zero fire deaths per year.

Can you say the same about your department?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by strtcopr on January 24, 2009 at 10:05pm

1.) It wasn't ''large percentage''- I think you said ''many small''.
2.) Did you ask me to define ''savable''? I don't remember. However, I normally don't just jump up and do something 'cause someone tells me to.
3.) Why not run two person units? Thats what most ambulances do..is it cost effective to run engines and such to EMS calls? As for the rest of the paragraph, about how many personnel are committed to an incident....Don't most agencies? Now don't ask me to define ''most agencies''.
4.) My original post was based on an article that I breezed through about Hilton Head..there was no mention of Minneapolis.Sorry Ben...I just don't have the time to complete my thesis on discussions I'm going to post on FFN. If that makes my arguments and replies appear not as good as they could be....oh well.
5.) Why did Hilton Head even put in for a grant if they felt that they may be in a position to have to turn it down if awarded? Isn't that kinda screwing somebody out of it...that may know that they will be or are financially set to accept the grant and the ''strings '' that come with it. I know that my department, even though it conducts very little master planning, does not have a strong fire prevention program or sprinkler ordiance,but averages zero fire deaths per year, knew before the grant applications were handed in,that they could accept the terms if awarded....that was for over $250,000 including AFG and SAFER grants.....
6.) I was not ridiculing those departments which meet national standards- I think all depts.-career or volunteer, should have to. I was ridiculing your use of them- you make it sound as though..you tell people..''sorry folks..my Incident Action Plan does'nt call for saving your house.''
7.) the ''crying'' was a figure of speech...if you are..please don't imply that I said that I, we,me, him or her conduct or believe in the use of ''knee jerk'' reactions or ''we're an aggressive'' dept.- I believe I tried to make myself clear in other replies to other discussions
8.) My department is volunteer and while not Internationally Accredited...it's not part of the ''master plan'' to roll the engines with less than four..let alone three..and we're an all volunteer department that has provided ILS since the early to mid 80's and now provide Paramedic Level EMS.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mick Mayers on January 24, 2009 at 10:38pm

Strtcopr,

I'm not interested in perpetuating a heated discussion between you and Ben. Just wanted to address item 5 for clarification's sake: Hilton Head put in for a grant because they needed it. We still do need it. The problem is that our community's revenue, like many others around the nation right now, is very much tied in to property taxes (and property values are kinda tanking right now), real estate transfer fees (not many people buying houses right now), and business licensing (and many businesses are reporting huge losses in revenue). All of these things, which have occurred in the last quarter of 2008, have severely impacted our municipal revenue stream. This is also the case for many other communities out there.

I am not the Chief of Department, but had I, or anyone else on our staff, seen this economic crisis on the horizon, I would have indicated my hesitation to encumber the Town to any additional outlays without a good plan on how we would make up that need in four years.

I would have done this, of course, AFTER unloading all my stocks. Let's just call this whole thing an exercise in free speech and you and Ben go back to your corners. I don't think Ben is trying to assert our department's superiority over anyone or imply that your department is anything less either.

What we really need to be doing here, everyone, is to be looking at how this financial crisis is impacting many departments around the nation, and possibly discuss these issues with your elected officials. It seems like instead of concentrating the bailout on the guys with the $1400 trash cans, we should be focusing some of that money back into first responders protecting this nation.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by strtcopr on January 25, 2009 at 10:36am

And what's wrong with $1400 trash cans?

Don't take item #5 the wrong way. However, I know it will be because of the ''tone'' of some my replies. If you remember, my original post was to the tune of how unfortunate the situation is,and how everyone loses.

I don't dislike Ben,heck....I don't even know him. I have agreed with some of his replies that I've read as well as yours.

You're absolutely right(reference-last paragraph). No need for anyone to take corners.....

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on January 26, 2009 at 9:19pm

Here's the op-ed from Hilton Head's local newspaper, circa January 24; http://www.islandpacket.com/opinion/story/734528.html

"Hilton Head Island Fire Chief Lavarn Lucas is thinking hard about whether to accept a $975,420 federal grant to hire nine new firefighters. The catch is that the first year of the grant would pay for about 75 percent of the cost for the new employees. Over the next three years, the amount would decline until the town was responsible for paying all the salaries. "

Further..."Lucas and other Hilton Head officials will have to weigh those benefits against the long-term costs, especially in a time of declining town revenue and limits on how much the town can raise taxes. "

...and this..."If we'd seen more of this kind of stewardship from government officials at all levels, as well as in the private sector, the economy might not be in the fix it is today. A good bit of our financial problems at the state level have come from using one-time money for ongoing programs. The concept of preparing for a rainy day seems to have escaped many of our lawmakers."

Not everyone agrees that "everyone loses" if the grant funds are turned down.

Permalink Reply by Oldman on January 22, 2009 at 10:50pm

This was the only viable option for them to take. If they couldn't pay for their share for the entire 5 years, and maintain the staffing throughout, they would be in default of the grant, and would have to repay the govt. There have been a couple of others in the last few months which have done the same thing.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by J Brooks on January 22, 2009 at 10:54pm

Don't forget that this is a grant that weans them off of it over that 5 year period. If they cannot pay their share, they cannot use the grant. This is not the first department to return this grant.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on January 22, 2009 at 11:04pm

Neither Hilton Head or Minneapolis has returned their SAFER grant funds yet - they're just thinking about it and discussing it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rob on January 22, 2009 at 11:22pm

It is good to see a chief or two looking down the road at the big picture rather than just short term quick fix that will run the budget in the ground in a few years. Besides, if it will allow some of the engines to be staffed at 4 per rig, they already are doing better than some departments around me. Several small volunteer departments are lucky to get 3 on a rig for the first in piece at a working fire and a couple of full time paid departments have cut staffing to 3 per rig and in some cases taken pieces out of service due to budget cuts. It is a tough time finacially everywhere and a grant of this kind might not be right for everyone.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on January 23, 2009 at 11:37am

Not only have I read about departments returning the SAFER grant money, but I have also seen stories where layoffs were done because after the SAFER grant, there was no money in the budget for further funding of salaries and benefits of the newest firefighters.
It's sad, to say the least.
TCSS.
Art

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by FETC on January 23, 2009 at 12:10pm

Some Grants, not sure about safer; but some if you default on the terms of agreement, you then are obligated to payback the entire costs from the previous years. Ouch.

Many towns around here have been offered grants; and selectmen have decided to back out after the reality of keeping that manpower on the towns books for a certain number of years takes place...

At least they were looking into the future...

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last