Capito Applauds Passage of Fire Grant Reauthorization

Program Benefits Dozens of West Virginia Fire Departments Each Year

WASHINGTON – A federal program designed to provide support for community fire departments got a lift today with passage of the HR 3791, the Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009. Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., praised House passage of the measure, calling it a much-needed resource for fire departments across West Virginia.

“Fire departments across our state do exceptional work in their local communities,” said the congresswoman, who joined the bipartisan majority in supporting today’s legislation.

“But there is also a critical role for federal funds to play in supporting their efforts. From equipment upgrades to vehicle acquisition or safety programs, fire grants are a vital source of funding that helps provide the tools and resources that help our firefighters do their jobs.”

The Fire Grant Reauthorization officially authorizes $1 billion annually for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program, and $1.3 billion annually for the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) program.

AFG and SAFER provide funds to enhance the preparedness capabilities of local fire departments and emergency medical service (EMS) organizations. Officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, coordinate both programs.

“These programs have long-garnered broad bipartisan support and I applaud the passage of today’s legislation,” added Capito. “I look forward to seeing our colleagues in the Senate follow suit.”

Capito has been a long-time supporter of the program, with nearly $20 million in aid coming to 2nd District fire departments since the congresswoman took office.

The legislation approved today is backed by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the International Association of Fire Fighters and the National Volunteer Fire Council.

Commissioner's Report

One of our County Commissioners, Cindy Pyles, spoke to the Lion's Club about the various goings on in the County on Thursday, October 18, 2007. A lot seems to be happening, but two specific items troubled me and I am hoping to get some clarification.

Keyser Fire Department - When I moved to Keyser in April 2006, I knew precious little about the new bridge, except that it would take out the fire department and the building that housed the business I had just purchased. I assumed, wrongly, that the new fire hall near Airport Addition was to be the "new" home of the Keyser VFD. Apparently that is not the case as the Keyser VFD will be relocated to a new facility somewhere. I came from a town about 5x the size of Keyser that had 1 fire hall and a superb paid fire department. I was confused as to why Keyser needs two separate stations 1 mile apart? Several county fire departments are rated better than Keyser for insurance purposes (New Creek and Fountain as two examples). That means that your insurance in Keyser is rated higher than if you had the same house in the New Creek District or Fountain District. Confused as to why the fire department would use their resources to fund two separate houses I asked a fellow Lion why this was. The explanation was that the City owned the building downtown, but the fire department owns the one up by airport...? I don't get it, so I probed, if my house in Airport Addition (Keyser City Limits) catches fire...who comes to put it out? Well, apparently both fire houses would respond??? They are approximately 1 mile apart. The volunteers at one likely pass the other fire hall to get suited up and on the truck then backtrack to my house. Why don't we go to one fire hall, use the excess funds to pay a full time staff member or two, boost the fire department rating, and save everyone some insurance money? Keep in mind I am paid as an insurance agent a percentage of the cost of your policy, so this plan would result in a pay cut for me. But I feel that it makes sense. Can anyone better explain the need for two fire halls.

Second, talk turned to the 911 response center. I was still trying to get answers on the fire department, so I may have missed something, but it seems that the 911 center is being built up by Keyser High School. Commissioner Pyles was asked if this is being built on a cemetery. It was the one time I saw her transform into a politician and "To the best of her knowledge the only cemetery was down the road and not the site for the 911 center". I smiled. Then the question became, who owns that land. Obviously, the county, right...wrong! The response indicated that the county is building a county services building on land that they do not own and are not intending to acquire. huh? I am sure that with a 99 year lease and some other legal provisions this could make perfect sense. A lease would not require a capital investment for the purchase of land, it could save up front costs, it could be the difference in the need for a levy (tax) or a bond issue, if the county has enough to build a building but not to acquire land and build a building. It could be a lease with a purchase option to delay the need for purchase capital. A whole slew of possibilities, but no one pursued this, no answer came, and I did not feel the need to pursue the question. It could be the only way to locate near the school which likely already has the infrastructure needs to support a call center. Here's to hoping that the commission has done their due diligence before selecting this spot.

Overall, I will say that I was impressed by my first meeting with Cindy Pyles. She was knowledgeable about all of the projects going on, she held the attention of the room, was political when needed, and (despite a lack of sleep and teaching young minds during the day) seemed to be genuinely interested in the projects that were going on.

God Bless.