Tanker narratives

[befferk]

As if I'm not busy enough with the 3 grants I am working on now ;) , looking ahead to the '07 AFG, does anyone have any successful Tanker narratives (or any vehicle would help I guess) they would be able to send my way? Having learned a lot from Kurt :p , I know I have my work cut out for me and can use all the help I can get.

bethkayhart @ hotmail.com

Thanks!
Beth

[Fighting41NY]

Befferk, I can email you a copy of my dept.'s tanker narrative from 2004, awarded in Round 9, I believe. I'm happy to say we are no longer in the game for vehicles, so good luck. I wrote this one on my own, prior to getting educated on this forum, so it probably has lots of room for improvement.

[onebugle]

Beth,

I have emailed you a copy of our brush truck narrative (successful '05). Even though its not a tanker there could be areas that could be be beneficial to you. Good luck.

[befferk]

Thank you both. And Fighting41NY, congrats on doing it on your own. It must have done the trick though! I know I would have flopped if I never had any help learning from this forum and Kurt (we were awarded full turnout and SCBA in '05). :D

Beth

[RES81CUE]

If possible could you send the narratives my way also...

MTrollinger@hickorycreekfire.o rg

Thanks!!
Marc

[Cappy05]

Just sent ours to you, received it first round 2005. Hope it helps!!!!

[onebugle]

Marc,

A copy of our narrative has been emailed to you. Good luck.

[mmcneill]

I hate to be one of the "ME TOOs", But could I also get the naratives? Please!!

Thanks
Mike
mmcneill@advertisnet.com

[onebugle]

Mike,

My policy usually is not to fill the requests of the "ME TOO'S", but I'll make an exception in your case...you did say "PLEASE".:D

[BC79er]

A few posted: www.firegraphics.org

[befferk]

A few posted: www.firegraphics.org

I've been over to check out your site, thanks Brian. One question though, of the ones you have listed are they all ones that have been successful, or is there a way to distinguish?

Thanks,
Beth

[Greenacres2]

As i recall reading at one time, Brian posts both awarded and non-awarded narratives on his site, and purposely does not indicate their award status so that people don't get fixed on a "successful" narrative and ignore the fact that what scores well for one department may not score well for others. Gives us a chance to see a variety of approaches and learn from the elements of the narratives rather than to establish a "cut & paste" approach.

Of course, it's Brian's site and philosophy so he will be able to explain it much better than i can!! :) Been a while since i've been there, but he may even explain that somewhere on his site now that i think of it.

earl (working from memory again!!)

[BC79er]

Earl is correct (as usual). I've learned just as much if not more from denied applications as I have from approved ones. After all, my rescue truck award that's posted there was one of the worst narratives I have ever written if not the worst. Yet it's the highest dollar amount for a Priority 2 truck ever awarded, and the last heavy rescue awarded by this program according to the DHS folks I have talked to. Most don't expect another one to be awarded. So as Earl alluded to, just because it worked one year for one department doesn't mean it will work in another year for another department.

And, what is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander. So if narratives are read for how they were put together and what types of information were used, that's a little different. That's why I don't hand out narratives out my workshops either, because what was done before is no indication of what will work this year. Each year is mutually exclusive, so that's why assessments are so important. Proper assessment, proper conclusion on project, that's different than taking someone else's narrative.

Besides, like I teach: if you follow the proper process in assessing the current state of the union, compare & contrast projects, cost-benefits to each, and write it all down, your narrative writes itself. ;)

[JAD733]

We have been turned down twice for a tanker, we are looking for some examples to help fine tune what we have or take what we have and throw it away and start over again.
email to jad-ff733@charter.net

thanks

[Fighting41NY]

Jad733, my neighboring dept. got DJ's 2 yrs in a row on a tanker as well.
This year they got the computer DJ. They have two tankers, an 87 and an 86, I believe. Definite need, but not big enough compared to all applicants. We are 100% rural and have zero hydrants, so tankers are critical.

How many tankers do you have and what age? Are your DJ's computer or Peer? If you have more then one tanker, or any are newer then 20 years old, from I what I read on here, you may want to change projects.

If you have only 1 piece of junk, I would suggest you send it to the scrap yard just before the 2007 AFG application starts and setup an automatic mutual aid plan. Having no tanker will improve your odds tremendously. None is priority over vehicles of all age and condition. Of course, this is a huge risk and there are a lot of other pieces to the scoring process, but I think # of vehicles and vehicle age are two of the key area's for beating the computer and scoring well at peer. Why keep the truck on life support, pull the plug now and improve your odds on getting a new one in 18 month's. If it is that big of a need for you and you don't get a grant, this truck's death will happen soon enough anyways.

I will send you my narrative, awarded 2004. I am just a rookie in this game, so ask the experts (Kurt, Brian, etc.) to read your stuff and comment.

[BC79er]

JAD, it depends on how far you get before you get turned down. If the computer kicks you no one is reading the narrative, so there could be nothing wrong with it at all. Even if the app gets kicked by Peer the comments on where your app was lacking are relative to the apps that got awarded. So in fact you could be doing everything right and just be a victim of more apps than money: plain old competition.

[olneyfd]

Just an FYI. We didn't list any equipment to be included on the tanker to make it functional for our department. IF IT ISN'T LISTED IN NFPA 1901 THEN YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR IT!!!!

It causes a LOT more paperwork to ammend it after the fact!

[firegod101]

We are a small rural department, we are in bad need of a pumper/tanker (500gpm/1800 tank). Our current tanker is a transformed homemade 1977 International. It currently has well over 100,000 miles on it and has pretty much seen its better days. We do not want to decommision this truck completly due to from what we have heard it is a pain in the butt to write the AFG if you are starting from ground up on a truck (true or false)???...
The tank leaks about 200 gallons a day so its pretty much worthless. I am curious in what the odds are of getting this truck replaced through the AFG. Our department has recieved an AFG award in 2005 for personal protective equipment.
We have a very limited budget and cannot be locally funded.
I am open for comments on this.

[Fighting41NY]

I am no expert on this AFG stuff, but we had the same tanker situation in 2004 and we removed the truck from service and applied with no tanker on the roster. Awarded round 9. I believe having no tanker (priority vehicle for rural) that you should have priority over everybody with a truck of any age, qty. of trucks, or condition. As long as you don't make any glaring errors in the application or narrative, I can't see how you couldn't get awarded. Your welcome to our narrative, same exact scenario. Since you wrote one succesful grant already, you shouldn't have a problem with the application. As I suggest above, improve your odds, improve your safety and don't prolong this truck on life support. I believe starting from ground up, no tanker, has no negative impact on the computer scoring, it should give you top priority if anything. The only difference is checking a few different boxes on your fleet and their age. We wrote in the narrative about having a tanker before, how bad it was and having to get rid of it for safety. Their is nothing more important in the fire service then adequate water supply.

[Catch22]

We lost our only tanker to a wreck just before we sent in our '05 application. The past years we had applied for an engine (only had one, a '74) without any luck. When we switched gears to a pumper/tanker and applied some tricks learned here and elsewhere, we got a round 3 award. I made sure I noted in the narrative we had no means to supply water in the rural setting.

[onebugle]

If you have determined through a needs assessment that a new tanker is the top priority for your department (all other needs are met PPE etc.), then go for it. Currently, 1 in 8 applications is funded for vehicles. Overall chances will be determined by the number of departments applying etc. Realize that vehicle grants are already extremely competitive and will become more so as departments move from completing PPE purchases and start looking at vehicles.

The issue with “homemade” tankers is that they are hauling water, tools etc. that they were not originally designed for, creating a serious safety issue. These vehicles tend to be overweight, under sized braking systems etc. The key to whether a tanker is decommissioned or not is its roadworthiness. If you are not sure have it inspected (state road team etc.). It’s a better argument that the unsafe vehicle was taken out of service to protect the firefighters than it is to keep it in service due to water supply issues. Mutual aid can assist with water supply, which could lead to an additional argument for a new tanker. Mutual aid tankers are XX miles away and take a long time to arrive.

[onebugle]

deleted duplicate message

[CordovaFire]

Firegod101,

Don't get discurraged. We had a tanker very simular to yours and was turned down for 2 years. We improved our grant knowledge and reapplied this year and was awarded in first round. Give me your email address and I will send you some info.

[mitchkrat]

We lost our only tanker to a wreck just before we sent in our '05 application. The past years we had applied for an engine (only had one, a '74) without any luck. When we switched gears to a pumper/tanker and applied some tricks learned here and elsewhere, we got a round 3 award. I made sure I noted in the narrative we had no means to supply water in the rural setting.

Catch22 - I'm up in Sioux Falls and will get to do a final inspection on our pumper-tanker tomorrow.

I can't believe how many chassis they have at the plant waiting to be built.

[Catch22]

Catch22 - I'm up in Sioux Falls and will get to do a final inspection on our pumper-tanker tomorrow.

I can't believe how many chassis they have at the plant waiting to be built.

They've got quite the collection, don't they! I'm not sure if that's a good thing, or bad, though.

[firegod101]

An in house needs assesment has been conducted, we have all newer air packs and PPE. All of our other pieces of apparatus are in good shape. After reading the posts we will probably be taking the current tanker out of service.

[neiowa]

The issue with “homemade” tankers is that they are hauling water, tools etc. that they were not originally designed for, creating a serious safety issue. These vehicles tend to be overweight, under sized braking systems etc. The key to whether a tanker is decommissioned or not is its roadworthiness. If you are not sure have it inspected (state road team etc.). It’s a better argument that the unsafe vehicle was taken out of service to protect the firefighters than it is to keep it in service due to water supply issues. Mutual aid can assist with water supply, which could lead to an additional argument for a new tanker. Mutual aid tankers are XX miles away and take a long time to arrive.

Apples, bananas, and kiwis there. None the less. In a microfireworld theory may work. Unless your neighbors home is burning an there is no water.

Rural America uses the tankers they have (build) as MUST have water. Fund raise for 10 years to buy a 20yr old pumper (if a "rich" community maybe buy a new beer budget pumper every 30yrs). Then scrape together a few $k to create a tanker to haul water. No fire hydrants in the FD. Call this town Muddville. The EastUndershirt FD is located 10mi to the East (primary mutual aid partner) - same deal. Smithville, 15mi West - same deal. Roosterville, 18mi North - same. Smedlap 12mi South - same. Other towns/cities in the area (further distant) - same. Eventually you come to a community of a few thousand that buys new equipment on some replacement schedule (dictated by the relative wealth of the city) and has fire hydrants. They have one "real" tanker to work the fringes of the city and wildland fires but depend on the RURAL communities to bring the tankers for real fires in their rural area.

Avg (homemade) tanker in these Rural FD is only 1800gal (or whatever was inexpensive to obtain). All of these FD get together (within 20-30min) and can move 350gpm from available water sources.

Now how many of these POS homebuilt tankers are we going to decommission? All Five? How many is FEMA going to replace? Expect any fires during this period?

My FD applied for tanker 2006 and flushed (not surprised). I wrote what I think was a pretty good app. Primary sell point was we would retire our homebuilt nonNFPA tanker with a "safe" piece of equipment = flushed (not surprised). Rural Dept = limited # calls so low payback = no joy in Muddville. Our current tanker (former milktruck) at 2600gal is the largest in 30mi (and the smallest community in that territory. We scraped up enough $ to get a "real" chassis and we get called to all "real" fires for mutual aid becasue we show up with "real" water.

Rural America still needs tankers, today and next year. And real tankers not 1500-1800gal toys. FEMA is not going to fund the tanker needs of Rural America.

Playing tactical "games" with retiring equipment in order to show "need"? That's got some liability in it's self. Particularily personal conscience when Joe's house in on fire.

[Fighting41NY]

Neiowa - you make a number of excellent points, nothing more important then water in my mind when Joe's house is burning, other then the life safety of me and my responding personnel. Putting people at risk with unsafe vehicles doesn't sound like a tactical decision either? When faced with no other options, we have to make do and take risks. The fire doesn't care if it hits the best supplied company in the world or Muddville, it still burns up and out.

If the tankers are in that bad of shape anyways, they will retire themselves soon enough or you will waste every cent you have trying to keep them going. Relying on unreliable equipment also gives you false hope and also puts Joe at risk. Sooner or later the municipality is going to have to come up with a plan if the DHS god doesn't hit. Their is no greater need then those with nothing, whether it be from the municipality paying or the DHS god.

This is a competition and those rural dept's with no tanker will always outscore everybody with a tanker of any age or condition, computer or peer. Nothing is not a 100% guarantee to get a grant, but a gamble at substantially improving your odds and scoring a big reward.

If the first due company can't put the fire out with the toy water tankers they have, chances are everybody is coming anyways. Might as well call them first and fast, they want to come anyways. More automatic calls, better odds with the DHS god.

Either way Joe's house is still burning and you still need a tanker.

[sdff1520]

Rural America still needs tankers, today and next year. And real tankers not 1500-1800gal toys. FEMA is not going to fund the tanker needs of Rural America.

Playing tactical "games" with retiring equipment in order to show "need"? That's got some liability in it's self. Particularily personal conscience when Joe's house in on fire.

BINGO!

DITTO, and same situation here. Two home-made tankers in the fleet... Mutual Aid? umm...there really isn't any This is RURAL! (read sparsly populated) America! Town A to the north is 35+ miles, town B to the east 35+ miles, town C to the south ... umm there isn't one and then town D to the west another 35+ miles. We have NO timely water delivery mutual aid support available. We also have no hydrants in the rural area that are capable of providing any kind of flow rate. We don't have the resources (population and taxable valuation) to support the purchase of manufactured apparatus. I don't think some people really understand the logistics of providing suppression for 400+ square miles of rural geography.

[sdff1520]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, the little bit of mutual aid support that is available ... they are home-made as well, and the departments past them ... home-made again.

[SLY4420]

Our current tanker (former milktruck) at 2600gal is the largest in 30mi (and the smallest community in that territory. We scraped up enough $ to get a "real" chassis and we get called to all "real" fires for mutual aid becasue we show up with "real" water.

At what point did you get denied? Did you make it to peer review?

Did you select the option that notes that the grant would benefit more than one department? It sounds like that if you cover primary Tanker territory with your mutual aid because they need your water that the grant would certainly benefit more than one department.

Perhaps with the wealth of knowledge and experience we have on these forums we could help you figure out where you went wrong.

It has been pointed out, however, that even a POS home-built tanker scores higher than those with no water 'atall.

[onebugle]

I was not implying that all homemade or converted vehicles are a POS, far from it. I understand that rural departments have very limited resources and rely on ingenuity to get things accomplished (neiowa your department is a great example). The department I started with over 25 years ago had converted a number of surplus vehicles into tankers. It is always with good intentions to build something that meets the need of the community and the department, but in some cases are these vehicles safe to operate over the road.

We learned that lesson the hard way. While responding on the highway to a MA call (not speeding) the tanker (had been used consistently without issue) had a catastrophic failure (frame) sending the vehicle off the road. Due to the experience of the driver and a miracle the vehicle did not roll over or hit other vehicles. Reason: grossly overweight. 20 years ago that was not on the minds of the members when converting it to a tanker.

My point, to firegod101, was their vehicle safe to be used over the road, if not it shouldn’t be used which lends itself to a better argument than just stating the vehicle does not meet NFPA standards. We preach life safety is important & firefighter safety is #1. The consequences of operating a vehicle that is not roadworthy far out weigh the benefits. A home can be replaced, but a firefighter’s life can’t. There have been a number of articles in Firehouse recently, where firefighters are being charged, cited etc. after being involved in accidents with emergency vehicles. We are being held accountable for our actions. Will there be some one there to CYA, if you are involved in an accident with a vehicle that should not be on the road in the first place?

[onebugle]

neiowa,

First off, you are the man when it comes to getting surplus equipment for your department. What I saw on the department's website for apparatus and conversions was really good.

After looking at the website and the equipment you have, I have a theory on why your application was "flushed".

According to the PG it states:

When we assess the number of vehicles a department has within a particular class, we will include all vehicles with similar functions.

I'm thinking (MO) is that the AFG looked at the apparatus and classifed the pumper as a pumper/tanker. It has 1500 gallons of water. Under the NFPA standard a classification for a tanker (water supply vehicle) is a minimum 1000 gallons. Therefore both vehicles could have been classifed as tankers. Now it appears you have 2 tankers, meaning that some one else with no tankers has a better chance than you do.

Other than not being NFPA compliant and homemade, did you have any other arguments to justify the need?

[BC79er]

1250 tank is the pumper/tanker split, over tanker, under pumper.

[4caster]

Any word from anyone about permitting past vehicle winners to apply again? We received a new pumper recently from the 05 grant, and would really like to get rid of the "death with water" tender. I know it probably doesn't look promising, but one has to keep optimistic.

[BC79er]

Don't see it happening, too many in need in that category.

Is that your station in your avatar?

[bart51]

....................

[bart51]

BC79er Don't see it happening, too many in need in that category.
" Is that your station in your avatar? " :D

[neiowa]

neiowa,
...

Other than not being NFPA compliant and homemade, did you have any other arguments to justify the need?

At the time of the app (and still the case) we had/have one each tanker/tender (2600 milk truck). App was for a 1500gpm/3500gal tanker pumper 4dr cab. Gustification was homemade/non compliant unbaffled tank, no NFPA equipment (would retire current non compliant unit); manual trans (driver shortage), only 2man cab (short on transport/use POV to fire scene); provide mutual aid to all FD in 2 counties (+) where there also is inadequate tanker capacity to meet ISO fire flow standards.

Flush msg was:

However, we
> can tell you that a panel of your fire service peers reviewed your
> application, and that our analysis is based solely on the scores submitted
> by the panelists. The panelists scored four elements of your application
> narrative: 1) clarity of the project description, 2) demonstration of
> financial need, 3) demonstration of benefits to be derived from the grant
> funds and 4) affect on daily operations. The peer review panel?s scores
> indicate that your application was generally worthy of an award except for
> the lack of sufficiently compelling information on the cost/benefit of the
> project that your department wished to fund.

So evidently I didn't make a good enough case. In 2005 was canned by the computer.

I had zero expectation of success for a grant as we have very low call volume. So I continued, successfully, chasing down our "new" tanker chassis - Navy surplus 1991 Ford F900 with Marmon Herrington 6x6, 18000mi diesel, auto, AC. Tank is a Army surplus HEMMT 2500gal Stainless, baffled elliptical. Will be putting together in the next few weeks. Will only be 2 seat and 2500gal, only a portable pump, but will have to live with it. Hope to get DHS $ for lights/radio. Not sure where we will come up with $ for paint (is now worn out OD green).

We are then going to (as per the Fire Grant) retire our current tanker. Still a very good chassis; we are retiring it for safety reasons - unbaffled, to much weight on a single rear axle for soft roads, manual transmission.

We apparently are now getting into/reinforcing irresponsible behavior/poor planning. For years the debate over big daddy (Feds) bailing out communities that failed to plan/save for obvious needs. The FD that obviously needs tankers intentionally has none in hopes that Sam will send $. Wrong answer. How about an urban FD that obviously needs an aerial that sells their existing unit in hopes to score a fire grant for a new unit?

[BFD003]

We are a small rural town of 650. Have a 74 army 5-ton for a tanker. We applied in 2004 and got turned down. Got 1st round award in 2006! The questions for 2006 were very favorable for having an unsafe vehicle that needed replacing. Our unit does not have original seat belts and has a soft top. We are required to get rid of the unit upon delivery of the new unit. We also own a 98 pumper and an 01 quick response/rescue.

This is our 4th AFG out of five years, but first truck grant.

If you can get past the computer questions you are well on your way. We asked for $175,000 - I'm not sure the affect of asking for too much but I think you need to be resonable considering the size of the community and # of responses. We've got a nice 500 gpm/2500gal unit ordered for June delivery.

[mitchkrat]

We were also turned down twice for a tanker (once to refurb old tankers, once for a new tanker). What we did last year was actually ask for more than just a tanker (first time asked for a 2500 galon tanker with a dump and small pump). This time we asked for a pumper-tanker with a 1250 gpm pump and enough compartments to serve as a engine company. Now its not just a tanker, it can also be our engine when our main engine is pulled for maintenance. It will carry a full load of LDH and pre-connects (also features our 1st master stream device).

Our neighbors have successfully applied for engines but also are using the them as rescues with full sets of rescue tools.

My opinion (and I know its not worth much) is that multi-mission trucks are a higher priority than a single mission truck (more bang for the buck).

Stay safe!

[mitchkrat]

Deleted Duplicate post

[Catch22]

My opinion (and I know its not worth much) is that multi-mission trucks are a higher priority than a single mission truck (more bang for the buck).
I have no idea how they score, but a pumper/tanker has to be more cost-effective than a standard tanker. One thing we made sure to mention on our pumper/tanker was that it would respond to all structure fires in our area, both in and outside the city. We also pointed out that we were lacking the required engine companies for ISO, and this would cover that requirement for some insurance breaks.

[firegod101]

Ok, 1st i am sorry that i posted anything about decommisioning a tanker.
But, i guess my question is the tanker we are attempting to replace is in BAD condition. It is out of service more than it is in. This tanker is a DEATH trap. So, do i let firefighters get injured or possibly killed by keeping this tanker in service???? NO WAY!....Volunteer firefighters are too hard to come by. Firefighting is already dangerous enough....isn't it???? Why should i as a leader in my "RURAL" department take a chance of injury or possibly death.
Again sorry if i offend anyone.
I am in hopes that the peer review will understand our need.
Only having an engine that carries 1000 gallons of water and a brush unit that only carries 250 gallons of water, hopefully this will help our cause.

[mitchkrat]

If you do take the tanker from service because of safety concerns, then make sure you state in your narrative that you had to do this.

Several of our neighbors have purchased used equipment that was in decent shape to get buy with for several years. They both were awarded new trucks this year and they expalined in their naratives that they tried using used equipment and how it has been benficial but that it was not meeting their needs and wasn't cost effective (high maintenance cost/reliabilty). If I was a reviewer - I klnow I would be more sympathetic to a department that has really tried to make do (used equipment/fund raising/building you own) vs someone who hasn't.

On our grant app for the pumper tanker - we stated how we purchased 2 used worn out oil field tankers and then refurbished them and used them for over 20 years. So we made our best effort to use what we had an make improvements, but we are at a point maintenance/repairs/reliability are killing our budget. Throw in the fact they meet no NFPA requirements and we only have one engine with no reserve engine, a combination pumper -tanker made perfect sense. Now we have a reserve engine if the 1st engine is taken out of service and have a good tanker.

Catch 22 - should have new rig in 2 weeks if Jack's old van can make another trip up north:D

[Not2L84U2]

We are a small rural town of 650. Have a 74 army 5-ton for a tanker. We applied in 2004 and got turned down. Got 1st round award in 2006! The questions for 2006 were very favorable for having an unsafe vehicle that needed replacing. Our unit does not have original seat belts and has a soft top. We are required to get rid of the unit upon delivery of the new unit. We also own a 98 pumper and an 01 quick response/rescue.

This is our 4th AFG out of five years, but first truck grant.

If you can get past the computer questions you are well on your way. We asked for $175,000 - I'm not sure the affect of asking for too much but I think you need to be resonable considering the size of the community and # of responses. We've got a nice 500 gpm/2500gal unit ordered for June delivery.

Just curious what your call volume is?

[Cappy05]

As if I'm not busy enough with the 3 grants I am working on now ;) , looking ahead to the '07 AFG, does anyone have any successful Tanker narratives (or any vehicle would help I guess) they would be able to send my way? Having learned a lot from Kurt :p , I know I have my work cut out for me and can use all the help I can get.

bethkayhart @ hotmail.com

Thanks!
Beth


Belferk, there a lot of good posts in this thread but I really do not beleive there is a single answer to your question. There are a few good points that I had picked up on in the past years. Now I am not sure whether this is still true or not but if you are applying for an apparratus then your existing app must be more than 20 years old. They had so many applications they had to narrow it down somehow. Do not get rid of your old tanker just yet. If it is non functional and in disrepair then park it out of the way. You will stand a better chance in getting a grant if you have a tanker that is a compelte wreck than you would if you did not have a tanker. I know of a department that needed a tanker really bad. They never had one and they kept getting the DJ. Last year they went and purchased a 25 year old piece of junk for I think $500 and listed that as their primary tanker. They then received the grant for a new tanker. For other types of grants there are many factors that come into play. But as I said earlier, your existing app must be older than 20 years. Well letme rephrase that the lady from FEMA/DHS stated that you must have an existing need for a vehicle (hince already having one) or your existing vehicle must be more than 20 years of age, extreme cases of need can be exempt.

[befferk]

Belferk, there a lot of good posts in this thread but I really do not beleive there is a single answer to your question. There are a few good points that I had picked up on in the past years. Now I am not sure whether this is still true or not but if you are applying for an apparratus then your existing app must be more than 20 years old. They had so many applications they had to narrow it down somehow. Do not get rid of your old tanker just yet. If it is non functional and in disrepair then park it out of the way. You will stand a better chance in getting a grant if you have a tanker that is a compelte wreck than you would if you did not have a tanker. I know of a department that needed a tanker really bad. They never had one and they kept getting the DJ. Last year they went and purchased a 25 year old piece of junk for I think $500 and listed that as their primary tanker. They then received the grant for a new tanker. For other types of grants there are many factors that come into play. But as I said earlier, your existing app must be older than 20 years. Well letme rephrase that the lady from FEMA/DHS stated that you must have an existing need for a vehicle (hince already having one) or your existing vehicle must be more than 20 years of age, extreme cases of need can be exempt.

Thanks, I have gained a lot of knowledge just from this thread. I know we cannot take the chance of getting rid of the tanker we want to replace, our mutual aid takes too long to respond (so spread out) that the structure would surely be gone before they got there. The guys on our department said they couldn't have that on their conscience, not for any price. So I will need to do the best I can. I really appreciate everyone's help. I have been reading and absorbing the information.

Beth

[BC79er]

Well letme rephrase that the lady from FEMA/DHS stated that you must have an existing need for a vehicle (hince already having one) or your existing vehicle must be more than 20 years of age, extreme cases of need can be exempt.

Remember the DHS folks are going on guidelines, and yes, it states over and over that the grant program is here to 'enhance' and 'support'.

But to be honest on tanker apps I'm close to 50-50 on awards. Half to replace existing tankers, half to ones that didn't have one. Most of the latter had less than 1500 gallons on wheels with small tanker pumpers in the fleet and shuttling water with a 500-750 gallon tank is a pain in the tuckus.

By no means should anyone scrap anything unless it is truly a safety risk at any speed on the road. You should never alter major components of the department's operations just to try to get a grant. That puts everyone in the community including the department at risk on a fireground. Proper driving of emergency vehicles will save more lives than the newest truck with all of the NFPA bells driven stupidly.

That would be Brian the former Training Officer & Captain talking, not the grant guy, but they both agree. :)

- Brian

[Cappy05]

But to be honest

BC79er is absolutely correct.