 |
S-8 Replacement
Why are we replacing the 1969 Snorkel Truck?
Sometime in the mid-80s the Board of Fire Engineers evaluated the growth of the town (both residential and commercial development) and determined the town needed an aerial piece in our station. (This was verified with Retired Chief Don Petzold ). Looking at the growth, it has not stopped. It might have slowed at points, but it continues. Much of what they had based their decision on has been built, and there is significant potential going forward. The need they saw still exists today and will continue to be present for some time. Looking at the existing ‘non-residential’ exposures (including commercial retail, apartments on Westville Road and Garden Road, commercial/industrial such as Wilder Drive, Red Oak, Westville, schools) we have a significant number of structures, that
may not have great height, that pose challenges for reach, particularly in a defensive mode. I indicated defensive because I believe our immediate posture would be to protect uninvolved structures and contain the fire to the building of origin, currently that could be difficult to do, even with the Snorkel. Looking on the planning board, there is at least one “over 55” project approved and moving forward (Chandler Ave) and one that has been approved and is stagnant (Gunstock off of Sweet Hill) and one in the permitting phase (Snow’s Village off of Route 108). From a rescue perspective, the proposed replacement offers advantages over the current truck and/or straight ladder with it combined reach and platform. Deputy Judson is more than willing to address this from his personal experience using both a straight stick and a platform in Salem .
Our apparatus complement has consisted of 2 engines, 2 rescue trucks, 2 tankers an aerial and a forestry truck. Of those, one tanker (T-3) was basically not on the replacement program after T-5 was put in service (that is, prior to T-5 we maintained one tank truck). When it was determined that T-3 could no longer be relied upon to maintain a load of water, it was decommissioned and given to the Highway Department. The basic components that I feel we need to maintain are 2 engines, 1 tanker, 2 rescues (at least one to be transporting), an aerial and a forestry/brush truck. That is what the demographics of the town indicate we should have (that has been reinforced by ISO when they reviewed the town).
Given the types of calls we currently respond to, would we be better to buy a multi-purpose truck than a single purpose truck (i.e. should we buy something more like quint)? Although I’m not an expert, it has been my experience that if you buy something that serves multiple functions, you may not get what you need (in other words, you compromise on some functions). I am not convinced having a ladder with 500 gallons of water (or even 1,000 gallons, if you can find one) serves much of a purpose. You lose equipment storage space, you are carrying a lot of weight with a singular purpose that may not be as effective as it is on an engine. You will have to compromise the weight factor somewhere. I’m not sure you are going to find many multi-purpose vehicles available in a price
that I think we would be willing to pay. Additionally, from a scene function perspective, the truck will have to eventually have it’s own water supply.
Is this an emergency purchase? No. When I spoke to the selectmen, I said there is a sense of urgency. That sense of urgency and why I am willing to commit $10,000 (non-refundable deposit) is because of economics. The national (and local) economy has had a drastic change in the last 6 months. Why is this an issue? I believe the market for used apparatus is going to get very competitive fairly quickly. Communities that may have been considering replacing apparatus may very well be holding off on ordering, that means a truck that might have come on the market won’t be there. It also means the value of trucks coming on the market may very well increase due to supply and demand. Deputy Judson has been reviewing potential replacements for both S-8 and E-7 for
over a year. S-8 has been a floating question mark in our capital improvement plan since I took over for Chief Petzold. It was also a question on his capital replacement plan as well. I have said we will maintain S-8 in service as long as it is economically the right thing to do. We reached the point where the cost to maintain it as a piece of fire apparatus is no longer economically feasible. On the advice of our mechanic(s) and those that are familiar with aging trucks, we should not be putting any more money into S-8 than is necessary.
When Deputy Judson located the truck on Long Island , we made initial inquires as to its condition and availability. We were not lead astray. I believe those who were able to view it and crawl around/under/above were very much impressed with its overall condition. Given the age and use (from what I gather, it is used more than our Tank-5) I would say it is in better condition than Tank-5 (all things considered). That is hard for me to say because I believe all of our apparatus are in superb condition given their age and use. To quote one of the group who went to Long Island when I asked for preliminary assessment “That’s a lot of truck for the money”, which I agree with.
When we began to look at used trucks, I was resigned to the possibility that we may not find a truck that meets what we believe to be our ‘needs’. By this I mean if we were to specify the truck ourselves (and pay $1 million plus to have it built) we would get a truck that hopefully satisfies the needs of Plaistow. To find one that meets our needs and is laid out the way this truck is, to me, is a huge plus. This doesn’t mean there are things I would have done differently, but if there are, they are minor in nature. They spent over 2 years designing this truck before they issued an RFP (at least that is what I was told, and from what I see I can say there was a lot of forethought put into it). I don’t know if we have done that, I think Tank-5 was about a year, but I
could be wrong.
Is it common for a town the size of Plaistow to have an aerial as part of their response?
Deputy Judson has collected information on the towns in New Hampshire with similar population (between 5,000 and 11,000) as Plaistow AND similar demographics. He found 25 communities. Of those, 3 do not have a functional aerial (including PFD). Although I don’t believe in the ‘They have one so we need one’ philosophy, when I look at some of the communities on the list, I believe we have at least the same or greater exposure than some of those communities. I believe that was a factor when the Board of Fire Engineers came to their decision to put an aerial in the community.
What is included in the price and is the price negotiable? From the contract of Sale: Seller agrees to the following items:
Seller will complete all a full service of all filters and fluids on the unit.
Seller will provide a new 2009 aerial certification in the name of the Buyer.
Seller will remove any all decals and lettering and re-letter the unit to the Buyers specifications
Seller will deliver the vehicle to Buyers premises.
Seller agrees that the following shall remain with the vehicle; the ground ladders, monitor deck guns and nozzle, and all permanently affixed items such as cord reels and external brackets. The unit shall also come equipped with a minimum of 5 pike poles, 2 extinguishers, and pump intake and discharge hardware, all of the SCBA seats, and the warning lights and sirens.
My interpretation: All ground ladders, at least 5 pike poles, re-lettering to PFD standard, a 2009 aerial certification, a mechanical check of all systems, delivery to PFD, one day of orientation (verbal), vehicle title, repair of some minor rust, repair of a dent in the upper rail of the body (the ladder had been deployed to below grade and was not clear of the body). It has a video monitoring backing system (like R-2), cords/cord reels and end caps. There may be some other incidentals, but those are some of the key points. They will touch up any spots that need it, but the current paint scheme matches ours. There may be some upholstery work that needs to be done, but I wasn’t looking at that as much as I was looking at how the truck was set up. I know we would need to purchase ladder
belts/restraints, as we don’t have them in our current truck.
The price is not negotiable. I asked this and the answer was no. I anticipate the selling department has based a minimum value on the truck to offset the cost of their new truck.
Why a platform vs. straight-stick? Firefighter safety and versatility. Based on the fact that we have few people who routinely climb ladders on a daily basis, this offers an alternative to that. If performing a roof vent operation, all tools are loaded into the bucket and the elevated to the roof. You won’t be carrying a saw on your back up a ladder, you won’t be jockeying for position once you reach the roof. Regarding rescue, it offers a more stable platform to bring someone out of and then direct them down (either the ladder or drop the bucket). It allows us to utilize members to operate an elevated master stream who might not otherwise be looking to go into a building on a hand-line or to operate a portion of a rescue operation from the bucket (lowering a person off of
a roof that is incapacitated, ice rescue, etc.). Again, Deputy Judson can provide more examples of the versatility this offers. On a horizontal extension, we at least double what we currently have with S-8, when you take into consideration the amount of overhang on the truck (85’ vs. maybe 35’).
Who is going to teach us to drive/operate the truck if we get it?
As part of the sale, we will be given basic operational training on the truck. One of the representatives that we met had been a member of the East Meadow Fire District and I believe was a member of the truck committee when the truck was designed and purchased. After that, I have asked Deputy Judson to put together a basic driver/operator familiarization program for the truck. Deputy Judson has been a member of a ladder company in Salem for over 15 years and is probably as knowledgeable as anyone we have on this type of apparatus. We have another member of the department with experience with this type of vehicle. Driving will not be the same as any other truck we have or have had. I plan on instituting a minimum time behind the wheel of the truck before a person is ‘signed
off’ to drive. I will rely on Deputy Judson to use his discretion before giving the approval for a person to operate the vehicle. As for ladder operation, as we have done with the snorkel, members will be given the necessary instruction on how equipment operates or is to be used on the truck, including extending and operating the ladder.
Why is the deposit non-refundable? This is no different than if you went to buy a car and put a deposit on it, they essentially take the vehicle off the market and risk other potential buyers not seeing it. I don’t particularly like this, but it is a fact of life. By putting a deposit down, we are showing serious interest in their product and don’t want to be ‘out bid’ or otherwise lose this piece. We could hold off and not give a down payment, but would most likely lose this opportunity, which goes back to the third question answered above regarding a sense of urgency.
How will this impact taxes? We have been contributing to our capital reserve fund since I have been Chief. It is my intent to withdraw the funds entirely from this fund. If you look at the Report of the Fire Department in the past town report(s) and our vehicle replacement chart, we have indicated S-8 as “to be determined’ and an estimated cost of $250,000. Using the capital reserve will not result in a tax increase. I firmly believe that we need to continue with the annual contribution at the current rate of $80,000. If we hold to schedule, we may need to increase that slightly to possibly $90,000/year if we have to replace T-5, E-7 and R-6 within a short period of time. But that remains to be seen. Replacements may well be dictated on vehicle condition
vs. actual time in service.
Are you comfortable with the sales broker? Yes. Glenn Usdin has been a fire chief for quite some time, he has been in the used apparatus business for over 10 years. He was interviewed in Fire Chief Magazine in 1999 regarding the ins and outs of the used apparatus market. I would suspect that if he didn’t run a sound business, he would not be in business. He has been very accommodating to us, arranging a viewing, responding to requests for documentation (agreeing to a deposit of less than 10% of the sales price, in less than 3 business days we had the aerial certification, oil sample results, and maintenance check lists). We have been asking another vendor to view another truck and for some reason they can’t schedule a viewing. That doesn’t leave me with a good
feeling.
If we purchase a platform/tower ladder, is there a difference in cost to conduct the annual certification? No. On Friday, I spoke our representative at American Test Center (they have done the annual certification on S-8) and he said the price is the same for any aerial device.
Could we get an extended warranty on the used truck? Yes. For $25,000 we could get a warranty on the drive train (engine and transmission). After one year, we would be refunded $17,000 if the warranty were not exercised, so in effect we would be buying a 1 year insurance policy for about $8,000. This would be underwritten through the sales broker. I would suspect if we wanted to pursue that, we could do it on our own separately and leave out a middle person. The sales broker was pretty confident that we would not find anyone to insure the ladder/turntable/pump assemblies. I am not in favor of adding a warranty at this cost.
What would we do with S-8? We would sell it outright, by sealed bid. I have been told there are possibly 3 or 4 individuals who might be interested in it. I have had one interested party come and inspect the truck already. I will propose a warrant article that the proceeds of the sale go back into our capital reserve for apparatus.
| |
