Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber N2DFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    S.W. Virginia
    Posts
    1,286

    Question Another AFG '06 "What are our odds" question

    After 2 years of successful grants for equipment, the dept. has given me the nod to "go for the gold" This year we are planning to apply for an new "Water Hauling Apparatus" (Ha you thought I was gonna call it a tanker or tender didn't ya)

    Anyway - after seeing this years change in vehicle listing I am slightly wary of our chances.

    Our current Fleet is as follows (Our names added to make my life easier)
    Engine 3 - 1993 1000 GPM 1000 Gal Pumper
    Tanker 3 - 2000 1250 GPM 1500 Gal Pumper/Tanker
    Pumper 3 - 1984 1000 GPM 1000 Gal Pumper
    Brush 3 - 1993 ~350 GPM 300 Gal Skid/Brush Rig

    Engine 3 - current Attack Piece

    Pumper 3 - failed it's pump test in 2005 (~700 GPM output) and it's tank is leaking. The tank is a Steel tank that is integral to the body structure and will require a major tear-down/rebuild to replace with a poly tank & we will also loose tank capacity because of this.
    Also if it will help in the grant app. this is our last remaining manual transmission vehicle and as such some of the newer / younger members shy away from driving it so even getting it out of the house can be a problem sometimes.

    Tanker 3 - The only "real" features that make it any different from Engine 3 (other than paint & pump panel) is the larger tank and a single 10" quick dump on the rear.

    (Pictures can be found here - http://n2dfire.tripod.com/stationbio.html Note the year on Engine 3 on the web site is incorrect - that was delivery year and not chassis year).

    We are classed as rural, and cover 78 Sq Mi about 2% of which has a Municipal Water system w/ hydrants.

    All that being said - we want to apply for a 2500 Gal Vacuum Tanker this year
    (I know - leave out the vacuum part in the AFG - Thanks Brian ).

    Now that they have separated Tankers from Pumpers with the 1250 Gal dividing line - will this hurt our chances since we already have 1 vehicle of this "type" all other things being the same ?

    Our current plan if we get this vehicle is to retire Pumper 3 (the 1984) and Move Engine 3 to it's spot. Then Tanker 3 will become our Primary Attack Piece.

    On any given day we usually have no trouble getting the first 2 rigs out the door (manpower is still low but that's another issue). This new arrangement will give us more water on the initial response than we would get by dumping the house now. Plus the new tanker will be better equipped and suited for accessing static water sources in our response area that we currently cannot utilize.

    Thanks in advance for any and all advice supplied.
    Take Care - Stay Safe - God Bless
    Stephen
    FF/Paramedic
    Instructor


  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber N2DFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    S.W. Virginia
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    O.K. - maybe this and a little more research have answered my question.
    Stealing from another thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er
    Yep, now Pumper/Tanker is in with Pumpers, Tankers are anything with not enough of a pump to be a pumper/tanker (small ptos and the like).
    Based on that & the following from the application itself:

    Engines (or Pumpers):
    Pumper, Pumper/Tanker, Rescue/Pumper, Foam Pumper, CAFS Pumper, Quint (Aerial device of less than 76 feet), Type I, Type II, Type III Engine
    Tankers:
    Tanker, Tender, Foam Tanker/Tender (greater than 1,250 gallon tank capacity)


    I guess that our Tanker 3 would still be classed as Pumper/Tanker and since my FD wants to add a Fire Pump to the new truck (don't go there - I fought it) then the new vehicle would be classed as Pumper/Tanker too.

    So now it looks like I'm going to have to play the angles of replacment of the 1984 truck & increased water delivery.

    Oh well - looks like I answered my own question - we're going to come out pretty low on the list if we even make it through the computers.
    Take Care - Stay Safe - God Bless
    Stephen
    FF/Paramedic
    Instructor

  3. #3
    FH Mag/.com Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Technically you already replaced Pumper 3 with Tanker 3. So you really don't have just a plain tanker. You can build it with a 4 man cab for transport purposes, but if it only has a small pump to handle 1 or 2 lines if needed, and refill itself it won't be a pumper-tanker.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber N2DFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    S.W. Virginia
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    stolen from same thread
    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er
    I don't see anyone following along that closely. Either way pumper-tanker has to meet NFPA 1901 for Mobile Water Supply and Pumper, so if it doesn't, then it's just one or the other in the drop down list. 2 man cab and lack of ladders and other stuff makes it just a tanker.
    O.K. - here's where I'm really lost.
    Right now "On Paper" we have 2 "Pumpers" and a "Pumper/Tanker" because our Tanker is also equipped with Ladders.

    The truck we are looking to get will be a Water Supply Piece however the majority of the Dept. want to add a fire pump to the truck.

    I had thought that the addidion of said pump would make this new truck classed as a pumper/tanker now since we're not putting ladders on it then it still a tanker even with the fire pump ??

    Bottom line I'm trying to get the On paper count to go from 3 Pumpers / pumper/tankers to 2 Pumpers & 1 Tanker (with the notion that this will constitute adding a vehicle type not previously owned which *could* increase our chances of getting funded).
    Take Care - Stay Safe - God Bless
    Stephen
    FF/Paramedic
    Instructor

  5. #5
    FH Mag/.com Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Correct. If it does not meet NFPA 1901 for Pumper then it's just a tanker. Tankers can have pumps and crosslays, but 1901 has requirements for ladders, compartment space, hose capacity, etc, etc.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber N2DFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    S.W. Virginia
    Posts
    1,286

    Default Just when you thought it was safe . . .

    Note - To simplify discussion we all agree that we have And 1 Brush/Quick Attack & 1 Rescue so I'll leave them out of the remainder of the post.

    O.K. - I thought I had it all figured out (and maybe I do and don't realize it).

    All 3 of our Rigs are equipped to meet NFPA 1901 for a Pumper for their respective standard year therefore to the AFG our current fleet is:

    Engines (or Pumpers): 3
    Pumper, Pumper/Tanker, Rescue/Pumper, Foam Pumper, CAFS Pumper, Quint (Aerial device of less than 76 feet), Type I, Type II, Type III Engine

    Tankers: 0
    Tanker, Tender, Foam Tanker/Tender (greater than 1,250 gallon tank capacity)

    The truck we wish to purchase will be classed as a Tanker since it will NOT meet 1901 for a Pumper based on the afore mentioned equipment requirements even though it will have a 1250 GPM pump & crosslays.

    I *think* I'm o.k. to this point.

    Now comes the part about filling out the grant application.
    Since we will technically be replacing the ailing 1984 (Pumper 3) with this vehicle, do I list this as a "Replacement of an existing Apparatus" or "First-time purchase for the existing mission (do not currently own)" or "First-time purchase for new mission (do not currently own)" ??

    My gut says "First-time purchase for the existing mission (do not currently own)" since this vehicle is for our existing basic suppression / water movement roles.

    GAAHH - I swear I'll never do another vehicle grant again - give me good old basic stuff like equipment -that's easy to explain & justify


    Also in the vehicle inventory section - for the 1984 do I list it's rated GPM capacity (1000) or the last tested actual (700) since it can't pump to capacity ?

    Thanks again for all the help.

    Edit - almost forgot to ask.
    If we have a large pool of operating capital to cover our expected budget for this year and the matching funds for the vehicle and have enough left over to pay the entire estimated cost to equip the vehicle to NFPA 1901 out of pocket. Would we be better off to go that route (look less greedy) or should we include the cost of 1901 compliance in the grant ?

    (And by equipment I mean drop tank, hoses, nozzles, etc.)
    Last edited by N2DFire; 03-23-2006 at 12:32 PM.
    Take Care - Stay Safe - God Bless
    Stephen
    FF/Paramedic
    Instructor

  7. #7
    FH Mag/.com Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    1000 since it could be fixed, just not cost effective. Pump test results are for the narrative cost-benefit.

    You're not replacing 3 just its pump, you're adding a tanker (new purpose) and taking 3 out of service.

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Linwood, NC
    Posts
    469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by N2DFire
    [i]

    Edit - almost forgot to ask.
    If we have a large pool of operating capital to cover our expected budget for this year and the matching funds for the vehicle and have enough left over to pay the entire estimated cost to equip the vehicle to NFPA 1901 out of pocket. Would we be better off to go that route (look less greedy) or should we include the cost of 1901 compliance in the grant ?

    (And by equipment I mean drop tank, hoses, nozzles, etc.)
    This is my opinion on this one...(Brian can probably chime in with the 'official apparatus standard!'...)

    What I would probably suggest is to SAY you're requesting funds for a compliant apparatus (ie: the actual vehicle) and that you will make it 1901 compliant through funds and equipment you are furnishing from the 'substandard' vehicle you are removing from service. As you said, you show you aren't greedy, asking for more $ than you need. Good Luck!

  9. #9
    FH Mag/.com Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Yes, forgot to address that, you will score points by including that statement in the narrative, not just planning on doing it. Remember, they can only score what they can see in the narrative because that's all most ever read. They are not required to read through the whole application. The app made it to PR because the computer agreed they were statistically competitive for the project, so the only thing PR needs to know is what is in the narrative.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,741

    Default

    Always looks good that the department will do more than just cover the matching portion.

    I also make the statement that there are no administrative fees or costs associated with a grant writer.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    51

    Default

    We've been pondering an issue along similar lines as the above comments. We are writing this years request for a brush rig. We have plenty of qualified individuals to some work on this project....warning equipment, graphics, winch installation, etc. Is there any benefit in mentioning the cost saving measures of using dept labor to accomplish this project, or are we better off just requesting funds for a turnkey unit?

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber N2DFire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    S.W. Virginia
    Posts
    1,286

    Default

    Thanks for the pointers folks. My app is now 100% complete but I'm gooing to have a couple of folks proof read my narritave before I submit it.
    Take Care - Stay Safe - God Bless
    Stephen
    FF/Paramedic
    Instructor

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Multi Part Rescue-Pumper question
    By mohican in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 08-22-2007, 02:47 PM
  2. FCC question
    By ADSNWFLD in forum Emergency Services Dispatcher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-26-2004, 03:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts