I attended the special City Commission meeting this afternoon and by a 5-0 vote, the City Commission approved the FEMA grant awarded to the fire department. This means that 16 firefighters can be hired.
Commissioner Beecher asked what would happen if the city could not adhere to the grant. According to Chief McCamley, any proceeds received up to the point of non-compliance would have to be paid back and all other monies from the grant would be canceled. Of course, it would also mean that 16 firefighters would have to be laid off.
Commissioner Beecher also mentioned that a couple of assumptions are being made: That SME will continue to pay their Fire Service Agreement and that any increase to the General Fund will go toward the grant. No further discussion about these assumptions ensued.
To help pay for this, the city will be asking the voters to approve a public safety levy this year, which could come as early as May.
Mayor Stebbins and Commissioner Bronson are convinced the public will vote in favor of this levy, because they believe, the public understands the importance of public safety.
Commissioner Beecher also mentioned that a couple of assumptions are being made: That SME will continue to pay their Fire Service Agreement and that any increase to the General Fund will go toward the grant. No further discussion about these assumptions ensued.
To help pay for this, the city will be asking the voters to approve a public safety levy this year, which could come as early as May.
Mayor Stebbins and Commissioner Bronson are convinced the public will vote in favor of this levy, because they believe, the public understands the importance of public safety.
So, what do you think? Will the public safety levy pass? Vote in the CC poll.
11 comments:
Commissioner Jolley must also believe the levy will be passed, since she voted in favor as well. I see more and more 5-0 votes. Perhaps Jolley has been infected with common sense?
GF Girl, did anyone inquire about, or offer information about, any circumstances where people were injured or property lost as a result of insufficient Fire Department coverage?
In other words, do we need more firefighters?
The chief did not give any stats as to the number of fires in GF that could have been brought under control sooner if there had been more firefighters responding immediately.
According to him, GF is operating below the national codes. He indicated that many times off duty personnel have to be called back. The response time for call backs is about 30 minutes, which by that time, flash-over has happened. (Flash-over is when the fire leaves the point of origin. It occurs about 8 minutes into a fire). According to the chief, once flash-over happens, death is more likely and property damage will be much higher.
He also indicated that today's fires are burning much more toxic than in the past and because of lightweight construction, buildings are being consumed quicker than before. The Golden Corral fire was mentioned as a good example of this.
The city commission ventured off into non-vital business and lost millions that should have paved potholes and funded public safety. Now they expect the citizens to pay additional money to cover those losses. That's what they are really saying. Zero accountability, 100% irresponsible actions.
Sure, they will sucker the general public into the need for more safety and the Tribune will promote it. Safety sells.
Common sense? Jolley voted politically. Voting against public safety is suicide whether the issue is perceived invalid or not. But not everyone is a little old lady scared of the rhetoric. Let's just wait and see who turns out to vote.
Any kind of mill levy increase this year is going to lose.
They are not national codes and the City is not out of compliance. THe national standard is 4 firefighters on each piece of equipment. Other than the big cities very few FD's have 4 firefighters on a truck. NO city in montana operates with 4 fireman on a truck. Great Falls doesnt NEED more Firefighters, the fire department WANTS more firefighters. THe problem with grant money is, the taxpayers are on the hook when the money runs out. THere is little chance of a mill levy passing.
A good part of this is the HGS problem. The chief has always supported this boondoggle as he sees a shiny new fire engine and a bigger bloated budget and department as promised to him by Tim Gregori. The city has blown it until after we can elect commissioners who really looks at what staff is handing them. Right now Mary Jolly stands alone in that regard.
Who is going to protect the City when there is an alarm at the HGS?
Look, in the past 40 years our population may have declined, but the area our fire department is committed to protect has increased. I don't think that 65 firemen are enough to provide 24-7-365 protection.
Anon at 1/29 at 9:01 p.m.; you make an interesting claim. However, Chief McCamley makes a very different claim. If my house catches on fire, will you be the one trying to put it out?
I agree with you that the city should have kept its focus (and our money) away from extracurricular activities like HGS. However, they did and I, for one, still want to live here. For me, that means holding my nose and voting for a tax increase so that our police and fire departments can still do their job.
As a community, we have underfunded our public safety infrastructure for some time now. Fully funding our police and fire departments will ensure that a beat cop is protecting our neighborhoods and that adequate resources can be brought to bear when there is a fire.
Treasure State Jew,
The city would have the money for their end of the grant if the city hadn't blown millions on HGS. I will not vote for any mill levy increase that's supported by the current city commission and/or mayor.
Treasure State Jew,
I agree with your basic principals concerning our public protection services. However, I have a hard time rewarding bad decisions (HGS/ECP) which have drained our resources and have been misdirected by our present and recent past commissioners and mayor.
Until this is reversed and rectified I will, reluctantly, not support any tax increase for ANY city services.
Hopefully this situation will change with our next election cycle and our city can get back to the basic services funded as necessary.......
Post a Comment