1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    197

    Default 07 vehicle question

    We are kicking around the idea of applying for a quint for 2007. Our fire district is 104 square miles with a population of 16,000, it is a mix of rural, industrial and 100+ residential subdivisions. 2 questions - 1) what is the building height that the AFG is looking for? 2) - we have no aerial apparatus and have approximately 100 buildings (homes, industrial, agricultural) over 3 stories tall and currently rely on a neighboring department for an aerial.

    We also would like to trade in a 2002 pumper with an approximate value of 150,000 so the actual cost we would apply for would be signicantly lower than the 550 grand it takes to buy a quint.

    Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    SLY4420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,974

    Default

    No aerial now, correct?

    Current age of apparatus?

    Buildings over 4 stories tall?

    Call volume?

  3. #3
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    197

    Default

    No aerial apparatus.

    1997 Pumper, 2002 Pumper (we want to trade this), 2005 Pumper/Tanker (2005 AFG Award).

    Buildings over 4 stories - at least 50

    Call Volume - 350 w/ no EMS First response calls, we average 20-25 working fires per year.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    SLY4420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,974

    Default

    Others may disagree, but I would say you have little chance of funding for numerous reasons.

    Is the justification there? (50 buildings, wow!) Sure.

    Is the financial need there? You have no apparatus more than 10 years old, AND you were awarded for a vehicle already. In some of these seminars, we've seen narratives from companies operating 1950's vintage apparatus first due still.

    As you may have seen here, there has been discussion about apparatus needs with the new program guidelines.

    If you were a firefighter on the peer review panel, after reading a narrative for that company who needs to replace the 1974 Engine and then read that you want a second vehicle from AFG - who are you going to award?

    That's my opinion...but I've seen crazy'er stuff awarded.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    197

    Default

    Our 2005 award replaced a 1977 grain truck/tanker, so I feel for other departments. We need an aerial and have a bargaining chip with the 2002 trade-in (i have already talked to the manufacture, they want it).

    With the huge price tag for a ladder and our mediocre size budget ($700,000 range) it would be difficult for us to afford one without help. Our county has a population of 75,000 and ther is ONE aerial platform in the entire county so mutual aid will definately be a consideration.

    Just asking the questions before i put the sweat and tears into the app........

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    SLY4420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,974

    Default

    Well, there is some cost benefit.

    The bottom line is that apparatus odds are gonna get tougher this year with "2-fers" applying and aerials aren't an easy game.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NW Indiana
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Given that you can do TWO apps this year, the cost to find out is the sweat and tears. I agree with Sly that it's long odds. But...applying for the truck doesn't keep you from applying for equipment this year. Nothing to lose but the energy and agony.

    earl (i'd do it. i wouldn't hold my breath, but i'd do it)

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    SLY4420's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,974

    Default

    earl makes a good point that I didn't put down, but he covered it. I was simply pointing out that it's gonna be tough for an award, but at least you don't burn your only application this year.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    197

    Default

    Thanks guys...I understand that getting awarded 2 vehicles is a long shot but they wouldn't have opened up vehicles for 2nd awards if they didn't see a need, right??

    Good Luck.....

    Can we apply for WARMER WEATHER???? Illinois is changing its name to Alaska Junior.....

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    NW Indiana
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Shoot, +25 is feeling warm!! We had 7 straight days with sub zero lows and highs in single digits.

    Hey Steelman, we are hosting Forum guru Kurt Bradley of Chief Grants here in LaPorte, IN on March 2-3 for his grants workshop. e-mail me at greenacres2@comcast.net if you want info.

    Doing the extra app is a job, but it may be worth it. Good luck.

    earl

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ktb9780's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Auburndale, FL
    Posts
    6,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SLY4420 View Post
    Others may disagree, but I would say you have little chance of funding for numerous reasons.

    Is the justification there? (50 buildings, wow!) Sure.

    Is the financial need there? You have no apparatus more than 10 years old, AND you were awarded for a vehicle already. In some of these seminars, we've seen narratives from companies operating 1950's vintage apparatus first due still.

    As you may have seen here, there has been discussion about apparatus needs with the new program guidelines.

    If you were a firefighter on the peer review panel, after reading a narrative for that company who needs to replace the 1974 Engine and then read that you want a second vehicle from AFG - who are you going to award?

    That's my opinion...but I've seen crazy'er stuff awarded.

    John you are right on the money here. I would rate it at "zero" chance for funding but then, I have been wrong before. In my book, if the application has very little chance of being funded, I'm not going to do the work and waste the time and effort!
    Kurt Bradley
    Public Safety Grants Consultant

    "Never Trade Skill for Luck"

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    93

    Default

    My department was awarded in 2002 for a $480,000 Quint with simmilar demographics, except for building height (we're mostly residential). I think you'd have a shot in that area, the only thing hurting you would be that you're a second time vehicle award. But I am no grants expert, so who knows!

    -Nick

  13. #13
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    The only computer stat dealing with aerial needs is the 4 story building answer, so with 50 you're well ahead of a lot of people asking for aerial devices.

    I don't see you gaining any favor with having a 2005 award for a truck and wanting to sell a 2002. Doesn't exactly scream finanicial need with having 1 replaced on your own and another via AFG.

    Aerials also require a significant paid personnel presence. And by the numbers you have a better chance of getting $1 back from a scratch off than getting over $700K for a truck. Plus some of the truck saavy folks will realize that you could make a few years worth of payments on that truck just by selling the 2002. Need might be there, but relatively speaking you'd be behind a long line of folks with greater needs.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    4caster's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Loraine, Illinois
    Posts
    259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er View Post

    I don't see you gaining any favor with having a 2005 award for a truck and wanting to sell a 2002. Doesn't exactly scream finanicial need with having 1 replaced on your own and another via AFG.
    What would you say to this scenerio:
    Awarded a pumper in 05. Want to replace a death trap of a tanker this year. Since it is not a pumper, do they still see it as another truck, and put a bad taste in mouth? My argument is major safety hazard to firefighters and public. Also rural, and need as much water as possible in quick manner.
    Thoughts?
    BAClair

  15. #15
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    I don't think you'd be rated as high as someone that hasn't gotten a truck yet, but as long as you're applying for a 'real' tanker (1800+ gallons IMHO) I don't see any real issue with it. Everyone in a rural area needs a solid pumper, brush, and tanker.

  16. #16
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    197

    Default

    thanks for all the input......mabye i'm off track in my thinking, but, while replacing a old vehicle is important, i would think that awarding a vehicle to a department that doesn't even have a certain type of apparatus (ie aerial truck) would be just as important, if not more so.

    I don't see where the prior award should come into play, if you are justified, your'e justified, plain and simple. I know of a department in my state that was awarded a $800,000 platform and had 5 pumpers newer than 2000 and recently built a 6 million dollar headquarters, did that department have a financial need? unlikely......

    just some thoughts.......

  17. #17
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    i would think that awarding a vehicle to a department that doesn't even have a certain type of apparatus (ie aerial truck) would be just as important, if not more so.
    To an extent, this is true. But when it comes to aerial devices that doesn't count if you don't have the stats to go with the request. And expensive vehicles are still a long shot. And when it comes to something you don't have, they other side of the coin is that if you have a great need now, you had a smaller one years ago that could have predicted the greater need and should have been saving for it.

    And no, not finding the financial need in your other department's description there. Have to give you that one.

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BC79er View Post
    I don't think you'd be rated as high as someone that hasn't gotten a truck yet, but as long as you're applying for a 'real' tanker (1800+ gallons IMHO) I don't see any real issue with it. Everyone in a rural area needs a solid pumper, brush, and tanker.
    Glad to see that "brush" in there. I think we're going to take a shot at a rapid response/brush truck while we're at it this year. Even though we got awarded a pumper/tanker in '06, I figure it's not going to hurt, especially with the drought we dealt with and increased brush/grass fires this year and our ever increasing med call rate. It'll replace a '79 1-ton (motor's already been replaced once, trannies on the fritz, and suspension is shot) and an even older skid.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they change to where if a truck has a real pump on it, it's classified as a pumper, no matter the gallonage? I ask because one of my guys thinks we should consider looking at another tanker (true tanker, no pump or a small one) since in their eyes we have nothing but pumpers. I don't think we're going to try it this year, but perhaps if the same rules apply next year....

  19. #19
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    No. Hidden in the Instructor Notes for the DHS PPT slideshow is the answer:

    750 gpm or more and 300 gallons water capacity = pumper
    1000 gpm or more and 750 gpm = tanker
    750 gpm or less then 300 gmp – Quick Attack

    That's a direct copy and paste, so looks like someone didn't proofread it.

    So I take that as 750gpm and 300+ gal= pumper
    1000+ gal tank = tanker
    300gal & less than 750gpm = quick attack

    Drops it away from the 1250 gal tank mark from years before. And yes, I'm checking on what they meant instead of what was typed. No answer yet.

  20. #20
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    197

    Default

    with 50+ buildings 4 stories or higher, is it safe to say we could make it past the computer scoring and to peer review......if so, i'll give it my best shot in the narrative......

    has anyone been successful with being awarded used apparatus?

    i've found a few quints, 2000 or newer, for sale with low mileage and hours. Could be a cost-effective alternative, if peer looks at used apparatus.......

  21. #21
    FH Mag/.com Contributor

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Cypress, TX
    Posts
    7,288

    Default

    Used has happened before, definitely an alternative to new.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Why the jokes/"issues" with "whacker" lights?
    By WaterbryVTfire in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-16-2006, 08:08 PM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 06-06-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2005, 09:31 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 06-05-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-06-2005, 12:38 PM
  4. Starting Out in Vehicle Rescue Training
    By rmoore in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-18-2001, 11:54 AM
  5. Chief's vehicle taken away...
    By Scene25 in forum Fire Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-15-2001, 03:53 AM

Posting Permissions

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register