Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Grant Reductions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Catch22
    replied
    Well, talked with the lady who emailed the reduction (very nice gal, by the way). She said forward the request and she'd be happy to forward it one for consideration. She didn't know if it'd do any good, but said any information I could supply to help out would be worthwhile. Tried to get part of it back and not sound greedy trying to get it all. Guess we'll wait and see what happens.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catch22
    replied
    Yet another lesson learned. I guess I'll give them a call and chat about the possiblity of another RIT pack and maybe a couple more sets of gear. I hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but worth a shot I guess.

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    10-4 on the 17th, look forward to meeting more of y'all in person.

    If you're short on PPE for people already on the roster they're pretty lenient on putting a set or two back if some is no longer good like it was 11 months ago. But since you haven't brought those folks in yet, the response is that they can't adjust the award for new folks because that happens all of the time. They have to be on the roster at application time. 'Tis better to have them in the department with no PPE than not in the department at all because they can't be counted if they aren't in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catch22
    replied
    Originally posted by BC79er View Post
    I don't see 2 per truck happening since you have none now. 1 per truck is a valid argument since you run M/A. Send the lone pack out of the district and then you're out of luck for your own incidents. So you might be able to argue back one of them.

    Explorers aren't active firefighters under the program, so they won't outfit them with new PPE since they can't use it for the purpose that it was made for.
    That's what I was thinking on the RIT packs, see if they'd put one back in. The gear I didn't know about or if it was worth asking to have 5 put back in so I could fill my roster. I've got a number of applicants I can't hire because I don't have gear.

    By the way Brian, got registered for Springfield on the 17th. Look forward to it!

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    I don't see 2 per truck happening since you have none now. 1 per truck is a valid argument since you run M/A. Send the lone pack out of the district and then you're out of luck for your own incidents. So you might be able to argue back one of them.

    Explorers aren't active firefighters under the program, so they won't outfit them with new PPE since they can't use it for the purpose that it was made for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catch22
    replied
    Originally posted by BC79er View Post
    Was the reduction due to marking some sets as compliant already? 4 RIT packs is excessive unless the call volume and # of stations supports needing that many. If high number of mutual aid calls, then two should definitely be asked for.
    I'm not sure on why they deemed it excessive. I noted in my narrative that we did have some <5 year old gear (maybe 4-5 sets). I also noted that we have 19 personnel +12 explorers and were looking to hire more, but can't due to lack of gear. Explorers wear old, noncompliant gear and would have got what we're in now so they can do more.

    The RIT packs I kind of saw coming. I tried to justify two for each engine and the fact that if we have a firefighter go down, his partner is likely to be in trouble as well. We're also looking at establishing some county RIT teams to respond to fires. Two each engine would cover two incidents at the same time, if needed.

    I thought about giving the lady who wrote the email a call and see what can be done. Worth doing that at all?

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    Some of the infrequently requested projects take longer because they have to take into consideration the costs of the area, etc, etc. No news is still good news, and at least they're taking the information into consideration.

    Leave a comment:


  • fyremanbob
    replied
    Question on Comm Equipment

    Does anyone have any figures on what they are allowing for Base Tower and Radio installations? I have been in contact with our grant reviewer wanting the figures broken down from what I submitted. We applied for many comm items in our regional grant, pagers, mobiles, portables, dispatch upgrades and a couple of towers and bases for departments that did not have any. These last two items are now being questioned for pricing. Not denied, they just wanted more info, which I supplied. Seems like there would be many variables dependent on location and tower installation costs. Haven't heard anything for a couple of weeks now. Getting anxious.

    bob

    Leave a comment:


  • BC79er
    replied
    Was the reduction due to marking some sets as compliant already? 4 RIT packs is excessive unless the call volume and # of stations supports needing that many. If high number of mutual aid calls, then two should definitely be asked for.

    Leave a comment:


  • Catch22
    replied
    I just got the notification today that our gear is being dropped from 25 sets to 15, and from $2295/set to $2125/set. They also dropped us from four RIT packs to one. While I thought it was possible that the RIT packs would be dropped, I didn't think they'd drop us to one with our reasoning. The gear quantity kind of surprised me as well.

    mitchkrat-- I'm still thinking it takes a lot of audacity to have multiple delays on delivery and then tell you no delivery until there's a check. Had they given you an idea beforehand, maybe you could have had the check ready. Customer service from those guys is severely lacking. If we go with that manufacturer ever again in the future, I think we're finding a new dealer.

    Our check only took like 7-10 days to get in. Hopefully you'll have the same luck!

    Leave a comment:


  • mitchkrat
    replied
    Originally posted by Greenacres2 View Post
    Trouble is--you get a lot of risk on scene with firefighters who never put on a pack in the course of their work, and (worse)--those who have gone through a few bottles of air, remove the pack and go to use the open-air port-a-pot. CV system is stressed, FF is NOT with a buddy (we hope) , and the weeds are tall. Seems like a reason to use a system that is not integrated to the SCBA in addition to the one that is.

    Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.
    earl
    Have to agree - we had a firefighter in a neighboring department that died on a grass fire during overhaul - wasn't found for sometime. Because of this we went with PASS devices for each firefighter (Grace System). We do a lot of work without SCBA on - but the SCBA versions are pretty cool - lets the IC or Safety Officer see how long you have been in air and how much air you have left.

    Leave a comment:


  • Limeforever
    replied
    I agree with you on that. Each of our firefighters have a pass device with an accountability card assigned to that card that each person is suppose to take to the safey/accountability officer when you get on scene. Big problem we have is that sometimes your IC is safety and accountability. As well as some firefighters just don' take time to turn the accountability card in. We looked at salamander technologies as well as the super pass system. Still up in the air.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenacres2
    replied
    Trouble is--you get a lot of risk on scene with firefighters who never put on a pack in the course of their work, and (worse)--those who have gone through a few bottles of air, remove the pack and go to use the open-air port-a-pot. CV system is stressed, FF is NOT with a buddy (we hope) , and the weeds are tall. Seems like a reason to use a system that is not integrated to the SCBA in addition to the one that is.

    Just my 2 cents, your mileage may vary.
    earl

    Leave a comment:


  • Limeforever
    replied
    I read that article yesterday. Makes you think. We demo'd scott packs and the new PASS system built into the pack seems to be pretty well thought out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Greenacres2
    replied
    This article was forwarded this morning by Capt Brian Kazmierzak of Michiana FOOLS in South Bend, IN:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16890732/
    Though it might be helpful in your accountability appeal. Sure makes a good argument for redundant systems, especially when it adds two-way signalling.
    Good luck.
    earl

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X