SAFER 2006 - Lack of government approval

[k3twpfire]

Here is another example of a fire department applying for a SAFER grant without preapproval of the city.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't there a stipulation in this years that you had to have approval of your local government before applying??

http://www.pioneerlocal.com/arlingtonheights/news/188347%2CAH-firedeptgrant-122806-s1.article

[bummer]

This shouldn't have even gotten through the computer scoring without checking the appropriate box that the municipality had preauthorized this request and would accept the grant if awarded.

I question if this community needs the federal government to help them support their local needs and "extra squad", in the first place?

[BC79er]

There's supporting, and then there is authorizing the expenditures. Any politician will say they support the fire department for any reason. Then when the request for money comes in they get wishy-washy. Hence the reason I say get something in writing with the amounts in it before you apply, like a resolution passed by city council or whoever foots the bills.

So checking the box was a no-brainer, and not really a lie. Having the support means they asked and someone gave a verbal. Details.

- Brian

[bummer]

I disagree that a verbal is what was being asked for. I do agree that a resolution with their governing boards signature was what they should have done.

[BC79er]

They don't ask how the support is being given, which I would hope they change for next year to avoid the situation:

The Hiring of FF activity requires a considerable cost-share on behalf of the applicant and/or its governing body. As such, it is imperative that the local governing body be aware of and support this application. Have you, as the applicant, discussed this application and its long-term obligations with your governing body and is your governing body willing to accept this long term commitment?

Like most everything else coming out of the federal government, nice and vague. Obviously the intent is to have complete approval from the local powers that be, including the amount of funding, before Submit is pressed. This statement alludes to but doesn't require written approval or legislation be in place. Hopefully that changes for the 2007 program. Sure sucks to be one of the ones that has written approval and then to read about someone that has to still fight for the money.

[ktb9780]

They don't ask how the support is being given, which I would hope they change for next year to avoid the situation:



Like most everything else coming out of the federal government, nice and vague. Obviously the intent is to have complete approval from the local powers that be, including the amount of funding, before Submit is pressed. This statement alludes to but doesn't require written approval or legislation be in place. Hopefully that changes for the 2007 program. Sure sucks to be one of the ones that has written approval and then to read about someone that has to still fight for the money.

Have got to agree with Brian on this one folks; having a "resolution", voted on and passed, making them honor the committment in the FUTURE is really helpful. Politicians on local levels get re-elected every 4 years so many times, they don't feel obligated to honor previous incumbent's decisions or obligations. Passing a resolution forcing future boards to honor the committment, if awarded ,is a good practice and was proved successful in several of my SAFER awards this year. This very problem was the reason that the COPS program for law enforcment failed miserably.:rolleyes:

[WJVaughn]

ktb that happened to a dept over in the next county. The dept got a Safer for 1.5. but that was after the Mayor and Council election and now the new Mayor doesn't want anything to do with the grant or the match.

[BC79er]

And the chief is now agreeing with the new mayor instead of his old stance of needing the people. The FFs union contacted me to help them encourage the new administration to accept the award. Hopefully it goes through without getting dirty. National standards and common sense point to them needing the folks, but common sense doesn't have much room at the table when there are politicians involved... :rolleyes:

[neiowa]

A resolution may be the "right" way to handle it. BUT if that is the route a city pursues then the next appropriate step for the city is to then include the project financing in their budget - with funds identified/appropriated. Depending on the time of year and how the city works this may mean amending the budget. For a long shot grant that probably is not going to happen, one of many a city may submit each year. Not going to happen.

[ktb9780]

A resolution may be the "right" way to handle it. BUT if that is the route a city pursues then the next appropriate step for the city is to then include the project financing in their budget - with funds identified/appropriated. Depending on the time of year and how the city works this may mean amending the budget. For a long shot grant that probably is not going to happen, one of many a city may submit each year. Not going to happen.

And if the resolution is worded correctly that is exactly what it will say ,that in the event of an award,an appropriation will be put into the budget which supports the program committment moving forward.;)