Cochise County warns emergency management program at risk as FEMA grant faces cuts and federal review

At an April 8 Cochise County Board of Supervisors work session, Dan Deshaun, director of emergency management, told supervisors the county’s emergency management program faces a shrinking grant environment and a federal review that could reduce or change its core funding.

Deshaun said the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), which the county uses to fund staff and recurring operations on a roughly 50% federal–50% county match, has been cut by about 10% each year for three years. “We’ve received 10% cuts in this grant 3 years in a row,” Deshaun said, and he warned that if the trend continues the match could shrink to about 45% in the upcoming budget year. He added the program is currently under manual review by FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security for nexus issues the agencies are examining, which is delaying certainty about future awards.

Why it matters: Cochise County’s emergency management general fund budget is small and carries two full‑time employees; most recurring program dollars are tied to the EMPG match. Deshaun said changes at the federal level — including a possible shift of EMPG from sustaining staff toward funding one‑time capability projects — could mean the county must either reallocate local general fund dollars to preserve staffing or accept a smaller in‑county emergency management capacity.

Deshaun gave a slide summary of the office’s finances: roughly $19,800 in the general fund is not grant‑matched; recurring grants for the office this year total about $23,000 (fluctuating between $20,000 and $25,000 year to year); and one‑time grants this year total about $160,000. He said all department grant expenditures are paid first by the county and later reimbursed, leaving the grant fund regularly negative until reimbursements arrive.

Deshaun characterized the EMPG role historically as supporting recurring local staffing but said federal practice may revert to funding time‑limited, capability‑building projects rather than ongoing maintenance. “There could come a day at some point in time where it’s not able to fund the employees and only fund specific projects,” he told the board.

The presentation reviewed other grant programs the office administers or supports, including Stone Garden funding, the State Homeland Security Grant Program, and the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) program. Deshaun described past uses of grant dollars: interoperable radio maintenance, ballistic and medical kits for local fire departments, counter‑drone equipment, cyber‑resiliency gear (satellite/Wi‑Fi in protected Pelican cases), live‑fire firefighter training, SWAT supplies the sheriff’s office requested, and a fit tester for firefighter self‑contained breathing apparatus. He said most projects have been closed out except the most recent fit tester, which he noted is also under manual review by FEMA and DHS from the federal side.

Board members and staff discussed operational implications if grant support declines. Deshaun described the county role in incidents: the county does not provide fire suppression but will issue emergency alerts, coordinate evacuations and shelters (for example at local high schools), and work with local dispatch centers. He identified local dispatch partners including SECOM, the Benson dispatch center, Douglas dispatch, and state or federal fire dispatch in Tucson and Phoenix. “We would send the emergency alerts for the evacuation of the community. Then once the citizens are out, we would set up a shelter at a local high school or gym or church,” Deshaun said.

Supervisors also discussed whether to reorganize services to reduce cost or increase efficiency. Board members raised the possibility of consolidating emergency management with the county’s public safety communications/dispatch function (referred to in the meeting as CCOM/SECOM). No formal direction or motion was taken; the discussion was exploratory and focused on options for shared services or consolidation to reduce net county cost.

Deshaun noted that much of the department’s work benefits special districts — especially local fire districts — and that statutory requirements guide the composition of the local emergency planning committee. He said the committee has nine volunteer members who represent required categories by statute and that members include public safety personnel, a media outreach representative, and a representative from a hazardous‑materials facility (Apache Nitrogen was mentioned).

On grants and training, Deshaun said upcoming applications include a community wildfire protection plan (for which the board previously approved a 10% local match) and HMEP proposals to fund HAZWOPER hazardous‑materials training for public works employees and contractor support for hazmat plans. He and supervisors also discussed hazardous‑materials planning for solar farms and the limits of ground access and cleanup when panels are involved.

What’s next: Deshaun said the county’s budget work sessions will include this information as supervisors and administration weigh whether to continue the program as currently structured, increase county funding to sustain staffing, or shift toward project‑based use of grant dollars. The board also scheduled a joint Planning and Zoning meeting for April 9; no formal vote on the emergency management structure occurred at the work session.

All direct quotes in this report are from Dan Deshaun, director of emergency management, unless otherwise noted in the transcript.