07 vehicle question

[BC79er]

Used has happened before, definitely an alternative to new.

[steelman]

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.......

[BC79er]

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.

[Catch22]

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....

[BC79er]

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.

[steelman]

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.......

[BC79er]

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.

[4caster]

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?

[BC79er]

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.

[Nick SBFD 6]

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

[ktb9780]

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!

[Greenacres2]

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 [email protected] if you want info.

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

earl

[steelman]

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.....

[SLY4420]

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.

[Greenacres2]

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)