AFG: Response Area Classification

[hmvfd577]

We've been successful with the AFG in FY05 (brush unit) and FY06 (comm, also PPE but had to turn it down due to pricing error in the grant submission). On both of these grants we were classified as "rural". Our 2000 census puts us at about 6,500 permanent residents. In both of our submissions for FY07 (FV and FO) we changed the classification to suburban due to huge growth and development of previously agricultural areas (currently, about 13,000 permanent residents). I had to justify the change of classification on our two 07 grants because the computer thinks from our census data that we are still rural. Our FV was recently denied but our FO is still in the running for turnouts/SCBAs/etc. Ironically, our current population put us out of range for our state matching grant.

In planning for the next AFG/FP&S grants.. I'm wondering if we should continue to use the suburban classification and justify it.. and if so, what would be some key points that FEMA is looking for in that justification? I guess a good indication would be if we are awarded the FO grant for this year.

[SLY4420]

In planning for the next AFG/FP&S grants.. I'm wondering if we should continue to use the suburban classification and justify it.. and if so, what would be some key points that FEMA is looking for in that justification? I guess a good indication would be if we are awarded the FO grant for this year.

The program guidance still says you must use the official 2000 census number, and that's unlikely to change next year. You can justify using the current census estimates that your population has increased dramatically in the past few years and it makes you suburban.

It can be a double edged sword sometimes with classification -- you could score really high as a "rural" community but really low against other "suburban" communities and vice versa. I've been told that if the computer determines you to be one thing, let it go. If you choose to change your demographic classification (which I have, and I was awarded) you need to justify your reasoning.

Generally the reasoning for the different classifications is because of the guidance documentation dictates how much money must go to rural, how much to suburban, how much to urban, the same as it does for career and volunteer. You never know who you're going up against in each category!

[onebugle]

Even though your population has doubled, doesn't mean that your classification has changed from rural to suburban. The following applies to determine classification.

under 500 residents/square mile=rural
500-2500 residents/square mile=suburban
over 2500 residents/square mile=urban

As Sly pointed out why tempt fate. Historically, rural awards have exceeded the minimum threashold required.

Justifying a classification change in the narrative, requires proof, not just the population change. The feds view is rural, there has to be a state agency that views and classifies your area as suburban.

I would stick with the rural classification and explain in the narrative the population difference between the census and actual. This way the PR's will see an improved cost vs. benefit that will not be reflected in the application.

[hmvfd577]

Appreciate the input, I tend to side with using the rural class and noting the difference in the narrative. I'll have to do some more digging with county GIS to get some exact figures. Thanks again.