Ann Arbor Fire Department receives $642K grant to hire and retain firefighters
The Ann Arbor Fire Department will receive a $642,294 grant to hire new firefighters and to help retain current first responders.
The Ann Arbor Fire Department has received a $642,294 grant.
The grant comes from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program— Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response.
When contacted by AnnArbor.com, Ann Arbor Fire Chief Chuck Hubbard said he had "no idea" his department was awarded the grant and he had yet to be officially contacted regarding it.
"That is excellent and fantastic news," Hubbard said.
It was not immediately clear how many firefighters will be hired or how many first responders will be retained as a result of the grant.
"Our firefighters provide invaluable service to Ann Arbor and they deserve the best resources available to protect our families," Stabenow said in a statement.
The grant program was created to provide funding directly to local fire departments to help increase staffing levels and meet national standards. Nearby cities such as Dearborn, Ferndale and Southfield have received SAFER grants in recent years ranging from $850,000 to $2 million.
Comments
fireadvocate
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 5 p.m.
It really seems like Fire Chief Hubbard doesn't know much about his own department. I remember some comments a few months ago when they got two new trucks and he didn't seem to know much about them either. If you pay attention to many of his comments they are usually vague or generalizations about the topic is speaking to. As for the grant, hiring and retaining fire fighters is a great opportunity, but $642,000 won't last long. It might get the department up to the magic number of 88 that Chief Hubbard likes, but then what? Then right back to square one? Short term gain, long term issue.
Goober
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 9:20 p.m.
Maybe the AA leaders will correct this situation. What do you think? Want to bet?
StopThink
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 3:36 p.m.
Whether you agree or disagree with the funding coming from the federal government, it is somewhat besides the point. The feds have already chosen to set aside this money in the form of SAFER grants, cities can apply for it (or not) - and in true governmental fashion if it is not doled out it will just sit there, it won't be used for other things (like paying down our astronomical debt). So, at the end of the day Ann Arbor may as well take it. As for Detroit, someone would need to research whether or not they were awarded a SAFER grant, they did apply for one back in per this article back in February: http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/detroit-fire-may-face-more-competition-for-safer-grant-20120221-ms. There may be reasons why they did or did not receive one, but I doubt Ann Arbor "stole" their money.
BornNRaised
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 1:48 p.m.
The comments just go to show that there really is no pleasing residents in this town. People will complain no matter what the headline is.
Craig Lounsbury
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 2:32 p.m.
"your quarrel is with the irresponsible members of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans too) who appropriated the money and handed out all these IOUs they can't make good, right? Did you not want us to compete for the grant?" ultimately it is the fault of a Federal political bureaucracy. Ultimately that is where the solution lies. Clearly the money we took is less than a drop in the bucket (bucket pun intended) But to answer the question of whether we should have competed for the grant my answer is no i wish we had not. I wish we would have funded our fire department through shared sacrifice within our community. This city has been (in)famous for taking stands on a mired of social and enviromental issues. Stands that are often symbolic in that they will do little to change the big picture. The mantra that goes along with that is that change has to begin somewhere. That we can do our share, we can show the way, we can be a light in the darkness.....of whatever the cause. I wish we did that with the Federal financial mess. I wish we stepped up and said we can find a way without a handout, we as a city are so much better off than the median/average/mean that we shouldn't have our hand out. That is what I wish.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 11:10 p.m.
@Craig Lounsbury: the actual federal debt including the unfunded entitlement programs is over $75 trillion according to USA Today. To put that into perspective, the entire net worth of every man, woman and child, corporation, non-profit and unit of local government in the U.S. is about $55 trillion according to the Federal Reserve's research unit. I get your point that the money isn't free but your quarrel is with the irresponsible members of Congress (both Democrats and Republicans too) who appropriated the money and handed out all these IOUs they can't make good, right? Did you not want us to compete for the grant?
Craig Lounsbury
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 7:35 p.m.
"This city FD is WAY underfunded." I agree 100% " So do we just not take the offer and keep the staffing below the skeleton crew we have now?" If that is the only option then we take the money. I am just suggesting a better option IMO.... we the people here in this town pay for our fire department know, as we go, rather than roll it in to a 16 trillion dollar federal debt that my children or grandchildren will one day suffer for. I'm 60 years old and most of my time on this earth has past. I am concerned about the world my children and grand children are inheriting. I see the Federal government throwing money at a fairly well off city (my city) who refuses to pay for their own fire department alarming and sad. It might be good for me and you in the short term but its not good for our offspring in the long term. That's been my only point. The program exists, I'm OK with that, but the fact that a city like ours qualifies is what bothers me. I'm not saying send the money back, and for that I am admittedly a bit hypocritical.
BornNRaised
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.
The Feds set up the system long ago to help departments that have had the city politicians drop the ball when it comes to responsible spending and priorities. In that circumstance, yes, Ann Arbor would be very high on that list. Every city is able to apply for the grant and has to provide very detailed budget records, call volumes, etc. Ann Arbor isn't the only city that received the grant. How then would you expect the Feds to setup a FAIR distribution system? There's a long application process with people that review each and every detail of those applications and stack rank the departments. Ann Arbor made that list. It doesn't have to do with how much the city 'has'. It has to do with the size of the city and the funding that's provided to that department. There's no argument from most people that have done the proper research that the city has fallen far short of properly funding the FD. That's not the fault of the FD, the residents, or the Feds. That's solely on the city council. Fix that problem first and the Feds don't need to step in. The bottom line is the Feds setup the money... or 'buckets'. This city FD is WAY underfunded. So do we just not take the offer and keep the staffing below the skeleton crew we have now? This is where we're at. I get the feeling some here think it would be better not to take it just to prove a point to the Feds. But that's just my observation of the bloggers.
Craig Lounsbury
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 3:28 p.m.
your criticism of my opening comment is fair and I apologize for the tone. Consider it retracted. But the rest of it is still on the table. A relatively well to do city shouldn't need federal money. And the fact that we get it speaks to a country with a 16 billion dollar debt...and growing. That's the point many of us are concerned with. You seem unwilling to address that. Rather just heap blame on the council ( I agree with you on that point). where we seem to disagree is whether the federal government should bail out Ann Arbor because our city is dysfunctional even in its wealth. I see that as two "wrongs" not making a "right". Do you think the federal Government subsidizing a relatively well-to-do city is a good thing?
BornNRaised
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 2:29 p.m.
It's not a matter of agree or disagree. It's a simple observation. Which seems to be demonstrated over and over again. Another view point would be that the council and their over-educated backgrounds must be pretty messed up if the Feds are saying the FD needs money and they have to step in to help. Chalk another one up for the council. And your opening line really says all anyone needs to know about you... either people are with you "seeing reality" as you put it, or they're living in self serving worlds? Nice flexibility. Or was it nothing more than another insult?
Craig Lounsbury
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 2:19 p.m.
some people see reality, some people only see their own self serving little world. Which one are you? I want more firemen and I'm willing to pay for more firemen and sacrifice in other areas of service to get more firemen. But I don't want to help pay for fireman in Houston Texas and therefore I shouldn't expect Houston Texas to chip in for my firemen. That is the general tone of many comments above. What about that do you disagree with?
SonnyDog09
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.
I find it sad that Chief Hubbard didn't know that the city was awarded the grant. In an earlier story he claimed that he knew of no communities that met the NFPA response standards, when a simple google search was sufficient to find many communities that did. I am certain that he has some outstanding professional qualities, but every time that he comments, he sounds more and more like Sgt. Schultz. "I see nothing."
fireadvocate
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 4:56 p.m.
If you talk to the fire fighters at AAFD many wonder about what Chief Hubbard really does know about running the fire department.
gofigure
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 4:18 p.m.
From my perspective Chief Hubbard's time is better spent running the Fire Dept, than "googling".
annarboral
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 11:46 a.m.
Perhaps this only means the Ann Arbor City Council can remove another $640,000 from the fire department budget. Clearly they didn't think we needed more fire fighters, so this grant might just end up as another way to fund more art.
mike umbolt
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 12:15 p.m.
They already voted to use this for fire fighters. There are thousands of fire fighters that have been laid off in other cities just in this state.
Craig Lounsbury
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 11:37 a.m.
As others have alluded, this is whats wrong with America and why we have such astronomical debt. Our fair city, the city I have called home since 1984, the city where my 3 daughters were born and raised, by all statistical measure is in the upper end of economic wealth. We are far from the top but we are a whole lot closer to the top than the bottom overall. Given that, federal money to help us staff our fire department is clearly a broken model at every level of Government. We cannot sustain a spending model where relatively well to do city's get this sort of help.
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 11:24 a.m.
Wonderful news!! The city says that a new fire fighter under the new contract will cost it a total of just under $80k per year, so $642k would allow them to hire 8 new fire fighters. This would allow them to reach the "magic number" of 88 employees. The FY2013 budget now calls for 82 or 88 if he grant comes through.
Goober
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 9:17 p.m.
If these facts are true as stated, then what happens next year? Layoffs? This is a government handout that should be better directed and spent. In fact, not used at all.
Craig Lounsbury
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 12:59 p.m.
u812, sadly you are probably correct. Government at every level is broken, federal spending is out of control (has been for decades, not just a "liberal" phenomenon) and there is no real groundswell of desire to fix it. So if Ann Arbor doesn't take the money its possible somebody else with the same "need" level will.
u812
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 12:32 p.m.
either the good tax payers of Ann arbor get the money or the government will waste it on another war or give a billion to Syria or something.
mike umbolt
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 12:14 p.m.
Much smarter to spread this out over a few years so the city does not end up having to cut other functions in the general fund. The city has done a good job balancing revenues and expenses, this is a good time to be careful about new ongoing expenses.
Craig Lounsbury
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 11:42 a.m.
this isn't wonderful news unless you confine your world to 27 square miles. Look at the bigger picture Mr. Ranzini. The United States has astronomical debt, we are closing in on 16 trillion dollars, and this is partly why. Cities like ours should not be getting federal bailouts.
Mike
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 10:56 a.m.
So let me get this straight. We're borrowing $642,000 dollars (or printing it) so we can retain fire fighters that we otherwise could not afford, and dding it to our grand kids national debt debacle that will be paid for with a crushing austerity program like in Europe? And Stabenaw and Levin are putting their names on this? Must be an election year and pandering to unions by throwing our tax dollars at them is responsible behavior and good stewardship of our tax dollars................Throw the bums out..........
Carole
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 10:40 a.m.
I'm very happy for the Fire Department, although if the city fathers of Ann Arbor spent them funding more wisely, we would not have to rely of "federal funds" to assist the department. Come on, city become fiscally responsible so this does not occur in the future.
bunnyabbot
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 4:37 a.m.
there is no such thing as free money, we all still paid for this money, it is TAX money. if our normal taxes were spent wisely (and not on "art", greenbelts or bike paths) we wouldn't be gouging first responders "buckets". fire dept, police dept, art fund, grants, it's all a shell game. we all basically paid for the same thing twice here, the first time the money was redirected into another bucket, the second time it was redirected as a "grant". Federal money shouldn't be used to cover a FD of a city our size, the city shouldn't have slashed thier budget to begin with, the city shouldn't waste money on non necessities at the expense of public safety.
Dog Guy
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 4:17 a.m.
How generous of the Senators Levin in this election year!
annarbor28
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 4:15 a.m.
How can Ann Arbor justify taking federal money for firefighters when it wastes so much on foreign-made fountains?
mike umbolt
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 1:48 a.m.
Guess the city council was right when they voted on the budget last week. The grant came through!
Dominick Lanza
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 1:39 a.m.
I am very happy the AAFD received the requested award I was disappointed when I asked to submit for the grant and was told NO by the former City Manager. Nice to see there is a change in priorities for public safety!
Stephen Lange Ranzini
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 11 p.m.
@Dominick Lanza: thanks for another excellent and very illuminating post!
Mike
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 10:58 a.m.
Where do you think this money comes from Dominick? The tooth fairy?
Kai Petainen
Wed, May 30, 2012 : 11:56 p.m.
excellent news. question -- is this a political game? that is.... don't have enough firemen... and hope that the government will provide them for you?
Unusual Suspect
Wed, May 30, 2012 : 11:55 p.m.
I'm really, really hoping this grant money won't be subject to skimming by the percent-for-art program.
Elijah Shalis
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 2:48 p.m.
Ya who needs art, it is just one of the major basis for any given civilization.
Unusual Suspect
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 1:59 p.m.
So instead of just being a smart guy, how about you provide some useful information in your response?
aanative
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 7:50 a.m.
A comment proving you know nothing about the percent-for-art program.
trespass
Wed, May 30, 2012 : 11:21 p.m.
Other communities, such as Ypsilanti are in more dire straits in terms of cuts in police and fire departments, so why would an affluent community such as Ann Arbor get priority funding over other much poorer communities?
BornNRaised
Fri, Jun 1, 2012 : 12:28 a.m.
Do you know if they even applied? What their grant language consisted of if it was even completed? The ignorance of people is amazing. So few know how this grant program works, but so many will comment on it.
Craig Lounsbury
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 12:49 p.m.
The golden rule.....those that have the gold make the rules.
Jack Holsombeck
Wed, May 30, 2012 : 10:49 p.m.
You cant compare Detroit to Ann Arbor.One is a really nice city the other is,,,Well Detroit.
Goober
Wed, May 30, 2012 : 10:40 p.m.
Pardon me? I did not know we had enough money, as a government, to subsidize individual state and city revenue vs. budget shortfalls? What am I missing here? I thought we were already borrowing from the Chinese to pay for current bills.
Goober
Wed, May 30, 2012 : 10:33 p.m.
Oops! There goes budget planning based on revenue vs. costs. I guess society is going to cover for the shortfall of most, if not all cities when they cannot balance costs vs. revenue. It's called a grant! I wonder how this is affecting or helping Detroit? I guess, the federal government has deep enough pockets to help any and all city and state budget shortfalls. I do not wish to perpetuate this practice of spending more than we can afford. I do not wish that we continue to solicit help from others to balance costs vs. revenue.
InsideTheHall
Wed, May 30, 2012 : 10:19 p.m.
Obama says candy for all. It's an election year. Stabbenow needs a boost. Meanwhile the City of Detroit struggles to even field a sembalance of a fire department. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/some-detroit-fire-houses-need-to-be-condemned-20120529-km The 1% liberal elites keep on rolling.
Elijah Shalis
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 2:47 p.m.
Thanks for linking a non so reliable propaganda Fox site.
towncryer
Thu, May 31, 2012 : 12:58 a.m.
timing is everything ;)