ENGLEWOOD, N.J.—City officials are asking to extend the Oct. 13 deadline to decide on accepting an over $600,000 federal grant to hire four firefighters for three years—due to uncertainty about whether the city is obligated to hire up to 11 additional firefighters if it accepts the grant.
The city was notified Sept. 13 it had received the grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency SAFER program and had 30 days to accept or reject the award.
The Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) grant is a national grant program that distributed nearly $305 million in 2018.
Hiring obligations?
City Attorney William Bailey said Oct. 7 that the city’s grant consultant, Millennium Strategies, was reaching out to federal officials in FEMA’s SAFER grant program to see if the deadline could be extended as well as determine whether the city would be obligated to hire additional firefighters if it accepts the funding.
Bailey said city grant consultants “seem confident we will get it [extension].”
Bailey said because the grant proposal included firefighter numbers different from what currently exists, the city is requesting to file an amended application as well as get an extension on whether to accept or reject the grant.
The grant reimburses the city for 75 percent of four firefighters’ salaries and benefits during years one and two, and 35 percent for year three, said FEMA officials.
Bailey said the city’s auditor raised concern about the city having to hire additional firefighters not budgeted for in 2019 to receive the grant.
He said the grant consultant was trying to get clarification on whether the city would be obligated to hire extra firefighters to accept the grant.
Firefighters’ lawsuit
Further complicating the city’s decision whether to accept or reject the $607,658 three-year grant is a lawsuit filed in May against the city by attorneys representing 10 of 15 firefighters who were terminated in April due to an unapproved budget.
A tentative trial date for September 2020 was set by Superior Court Judge Christine Farrington Sept. 27 and the city was ordered to answer an interrogatory filed by the firefighters’ attorney—following months of delays by the city.
At the conference, all attorneys agreed to meet together at a future date to discuss possible options for an earlier lawsuit resolution.
The city hired 11 firefighters “conditionally” in January and following a couple City Council meetings where residents spoke out against the firefighters’ hiring due to all being non-residents and not African American, former city manager Ed Hynes sent a letter to the firefighters saying they could not attend the Fire Academy in mid-April due to an unapproved budget.
This termination letter followed a day where the new firefighters were fitted for uniforms, gear, given security codes, and a tour of the city firehouse.
City hiring 11 firefighters
Throughout its 24-page grant application submitted in late March for federal SAFER funding to hire four firefighters, the city makes repeated reference to its plan to hire 11 firefighters, which together with four firefighters to be funded by the SAFER grant, would bring firefighter staffing up to 59, a standard recommended by the National Fire Protection Association.
Moreover, in a letter of support filed by U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell to boost the city’s chances for SAFER grant funding to hire four firefighters, Pascrell noted 14 firefighters retired since 2015 “and the city plans to recoup this loss with the hiring of 11 firefighters.”
“Yet due to recent budgetary constraints, the city needs to hire four more to have 59 sworn members in total, as per the table of organization approved by Englewood City Council in order to ensure optimal response time and effectively protect the citizens and infrastructure of Englewood,” adds Pascrell’s April 1 letter of support.
Whether the city can accept the $600,000-plus in federal funds without hiring 11 firefighters was unclear, according to federal grant officials, though one said changes often occur in local departments and federal officials could work with the city to provide grant funds based on an approved city plan to hire the 11 firefighters.
A FEMA spokesperson told Northern Valley Press Oct. 8 that the agency uses the National Fire Protection Association standards—which would be 59 firefighters needed in Englewood—in combination with a review of current budget, staffing, and pre-award staffing to “establish a staff/maintenance level number.” It was unclear how such a number relates to NFPA standards.
‘Provide…justification’
“Departments can accept an award even if some factors have changed since the time when they applied for the grant. However, the department may be required to provide additional justification for any significant variances,” said FEMA’s spokesperson.
FEMA requires departments to fill “any currently budgeted vacancies…that contribute to NFPA compliance in addition to hiring the SAFER-funded positions,” said a spokesperson.
A spokesperson said once FEMA and a local department agree on a staffing maintenance level/number “the grant recipient must take active and timely steps to fill vacancies” and those that do not “may be found non-compliant and in default of their award.”
Resident or non-resident?
Another possible factor complicating firefighter hiring is the city’s new residency preference ordinance approved May 21 at a contentious meeting where several would-be firefighters made emotional appeals to be rehired, before filing a lawsuit against the city the next day.
The residency preference ordinance was passed following nearly 18 months of off-and-on discussions, vetting by the city’s labor counsel Genova Burns, and several meetings featuring calls from citizens, organizations and a group representing African American firefighters to throw out the previous firefighters’ exam results. This was necessary, they said, due to a lack of residents and minorities among top exam scorers.
They urged officials to hire more residents and repeatedly stated why residents should be hired over non-residents, such as residents give back more to the community and know the local people and neighborhoods.
An attorney representing fired firefighters, Michael Prigoff, said the ordinance was illegal because it prevented non-residents in the department from being considered for promotions, and appeared to prevent the terminated firefighters from re-applying for their positions.
Prigoff contends the ordinance does not apply to any firefighter hired and then fired this year “because my clients were hired before the effective date of the ordinance and [it] cannot be applied ex post facto. Furthermore, as I advised the council during a hearing on the ordinance, [it] violates state law,” he told Northern Valley Press.