1. ## Run Volume

I couldn't attend a seminar this year. I've heard that run volume will factor into scoring. How does this work? Does low volume departments get kicked out by computer scoring? Is a minimum call volume required?

2. ## Run Volume

From my best understanding, this has everything to do with risk and cost benefit. Taking your figures to find a frequency of use and cost per person affected benifit has everything to do with run volume. For instance... you want a 200K pumper, of your call volume; 45 per year are actual fires, so over the life of the engine (25 yrs) you would respond to 1125 fires. Now divide that into the cost of the engine. or...a frequency of use value of \$177.78 over the investment.
Now figure for your population vs runs. The cost per use of 177.78 divided into a population of say 1500 gives you a cost per person affected value of \$8.44.

I would immagine that as small as those numbers look, they are not small enough to satisfy the federal investment over the life of the rig. Basically busier departments that will experience high use of the purchase at the best value should receive funding. Again, that is my understanding, but I am 0 for the last 2. JMHO

Anyone care to jump on this grenade?

3. How about population of first due area x service life ( 25years) divided into total cost of project = cost benefit per person

1500 x 25 = 37,500

37,500 divided into \$200,000 = \$5.33

Only way to get a better cost benefit here is to smack the intitial cost of the project with some of your own money!

4. So does \$5.33 make the cut? What should I be targeting as a Cost Benefit amount?

5. So does \$5.33 make the cut? What should I be targeting as a Cost Benefit amount?

6. I try to use \$100 or less for frequency of use and \$2.00 or lower for cost per person.

7. kurt...are those calculations truly taken into consideration? if so, how would our department stack up?

15,000 population
apparatus cost - \$550,000 (quint)
no aerial apparatus in our inventory with 50+ buildings over 4 stories

thanks

8. Originally Posted by steelman
kurt...are those calculations truly taken into consideration? if so, how would our department stack up?

15,000 population
apparatus cost - \$550,000 (quint)
no aerial apparatus in our inventory with 50+ buildings over 4 stories

thanks
Are the 50+buildings occupied? If so, i think it looks pretty good. Especially if you are classed Suburban and have a reasonable call volume.

Seems like a lot of 4+ story bldgs for 15,000 pop--are they office bldgs, storage, apartments??

earl

9. 25 or so are heavy industry / factories......are they looking for height for a four story building or actual floors? like most communities we have a ton of new single family homes with roof ridges at 50 ft or higher and 12/12 pitches, no way we can reach them with ground ladders.........

10. Originally Posted by WFDFPBEMSL4
For instance... you want a 200K pumper, of your call volume; 45 per year are actual fires, so over the life of the engine (25 yrs) you would respond to 1125 fires. Now divide that into the cost of the engine. or...a frequency of use value of \$177.78 over the investment.
Now figure for your population vs runs. The cost per use of 177.78 divided into a population of say 1500 gives you a cost per person affected value of \$8.44.
I thought for cost benefit you use 20 years instead of 25 years. Correct me please if I am wrong.

11. Hoping this isn't hijacking, but it's still related. Would 20 years be acceptable as service life for a quick attack? With our department, it'd likely get 25-30, but I can see an evaluator looking at it thinking "WTF are they trying to pull?"

Using 20 years I get a \$1.79 using the population ratio and \$35.71 per run.

If I drop to 15 years, I get \$2.38 pop and \$47.61 per run.

Based the numbers on a \$125,000 quick attack/brush replacing a '79 model brush/skid. Of course, the 20 year service life looks better, but I hate to push my luck!

12. I think the estimated annnual increase in call volume and population are what is missing from those calculations, so your results are going to be off without taking that into consideration.

Current calcs are all that really matter anyway since future call volume and population are big unknowns. So current cost/resident, square mile, etc, etc are all that the computer crunches. The lower the ratio, the better the chance. It's all about reasonability.

13. Originally Posted by imafireman
I thought for cost benefit you use 20 years instead of 25 years. Correct me please if I am wrong.
Well typically I use 20 years with the thought being that current PG puts emphasis around the 20+ years of age for replacement but, I see many departments trying to replace at 25+. I would say if your past history indicates that you are getting 25+ years of service form your fleet then it is "reasonable" ,as my esteemed colleague from Texas pointed out, to assume that you would have the truck in sevice for that length of time. I would clarify that in my narrative for the reviewer though.

14. I used 20 years for our brush truck. We replaced a vehicle that was 16 years old.

Sometimes a simple analogy doesn't hurt, to put the figures into perspective for the readers. For the brush narrative I made a comment about the vehicle lasting 20 years (\$6750/yr) a small price to pay compared to the police department that is replacing cruiser(s) each year at a cost of about \$25,000.

15. Great point onebugle; the reviewer's peception of the reasonableness of your project is a key factor. If you don't plant those seeds, the reviewer is left to his/her own jdugement. Kind of like a defense attorney planting that "seed of doubt" in a jury's mind; all it takes is the seed being planted, to grow the reasonable doubt theory aka; The O.J Theory.

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

#### Posting Permissions

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