HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.c. Aerial Truck Status ReportCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMD3ARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 18, 1992
AGENDA ITEM:
AGENDA SECTION:
Aerial Truck Status Report
Department Head Report
PREPARED BY:
AGENDAlj/i
C-
Scott Aker, Fire Chief
ATTACMMT.S:
APP VED BY:
(1) Memo to City Council
This item is an update on the status of the aerial truck. The attached
memo is an attempt to give you some background information on this vehicle,
explain what is involved with the current needed repairs, and outline the
needs of the City with respect to an aerial device.
RECOHMENDED ACTION:
None
COUNCIL ACTION:
ROSEMOUNT VOLUNTEER FIDE DEPARTMENT
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA 55068
TO: Mayor McMenomy
Councilmembers Klassen, Staats, Willcox, Wippermann
FROM: Scott Aker, Fire Chief
DATE: February 18, 1992
RE: Aerial Truck Status Report
As was indicated on the Executive Summary, this item is a request
to engage the repair services of Emergency Apparatus Maintenance,
Inc. to perform repairs on the pump of our aerial truck. At the
present time the pump on this truck is not operational. We are
able to use the aerial truck for high level rescue at the present
time and if the need occurred the aerial truck could be pumped
through in order to provide a water supply for a high level
extinguishment'.
The Rosemodnt.Fire Department currently has"in service -this 65 -
foot aerial 'plat,form,, which was purchased in the early 1970's
from the American Fire Apparatus Company. Shortly after we took
delivery of this°,.truck, the manufacturer went' out, of business.
Over the years, the general condition of the truck has steadily.
deteriorated. It is now to the point where we are spending
between.$S,000 to $10,000 annually on repairs. That amount is
note "necessarily extraordinary when you consider the cost ofa
r:.
vehicle iike,`this. However, if you look at the fact that this
truck is very seldom used (most of the use is during training)
and we are still incurring those kinds of repair bills, then it
becomes slightly more significant. Since the manufacturer is no
longer in business, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get
the necessary parts to keep the truck in service. In recent
years, the truck has been plagued by several re -occurring
problems. These problems are likely to continue and are sure to
become more difficult to fix as the truck continues to age. It
is not uncommon for the truck to be out of service for several
months at a time while trying to locate parts, schedule repairs,
and actually have the work completed. A total of 6 repair
facilities were contacted since this truck went down in November.
Only one of those 6 is willing to undertake the repairs.
In the latter part of 1991, we saw a $5,000 expense for repairs
to the hydraulic system of this truck. Now in early 1992 we are
looking at an additional $7,000 expense to repair the pump. This
pump is still being made but it is made in England with one
distributor in the southern United States.
Page 2
An aerial truck has been in the CIP for several years. It has
been postponed due to shortfalls in the amount of funds which are
available. Saving dollars on paper has been necessary in the
past in order to present a balanced budget, however, it may end
up costing us a lot more in the future if we do not replace this
truck soon, and in annual budgetary overruns.
The cost has gone from approximately $400,000 to over $500,000
for a new vehicle in the last few years. We have, as was
mentioned earlier, spent $5,000 to $10,000 each year for those
past years on our current vehicle just to keep it in service. If
replaced, we would probably replace this vehicle with an aerial
truck slightly larger, perhaps with a reach of approximately 100
feet. Even when our current aerial truck is working in perfect
condition, it is not adequate for some of the taller buildings we
have within the city. It would also prove to be quite inadequate
for some of the industry on the east end of Rosemount and the
proposed industry we will see in the future.
A $500,000 to $600,000 expense of this type would be quite a
burden on the CIP. Because of this it has been discussed, as a
possibility, that if a facility expansion should be considered as
was studied in 1988 by the Hoisington group and again studied and
confirmed and proposed by a citizens group, along with David
Kroos of Boarman and Associates in 1990, a vehicle of this large
expense may be included as an option in a referendum.
Because things were moving along quite well in 1990 towards a
facility expansion and the option of the inclusion of this
vehicle in a possible referendum, the fire department did not
aggressively pursue its replacement in the CIP. It made sense
and appeared to be much more beneficial to the overall economic
condition of the city to include this vehicle in a facility
expansion package, if the citizens concurred with the level of
service it could provide.
Since that time with the growth of the city and the needed
"growth" of a truck (size of vehicle) to meet those needs, it may
be even more closely tied to a facility expansion just because of
the rising costs. A new, larger truck as would be needed, would
be difficult to accommodate in the current fire station. It
could be done as a temporary measure by doing some creative
parking, if it was absolutely necessary to purchase a vehicle
prior to any facility expansion.
The status of our new vehicle always arises when we are looking
at a $5,000 or $6,000 repair bill, as it probably should. We
can't really say we are being nickel and dimed on expenses
because $5,000 is less than 1 percent of a new vehicle, and we
Page 3
would undoubtedly have some ongoing repairs even with a new
aerial truck. However, the continued annual expenses on an
inadequate vehicle are quite disturbing.
The main thing we need to keep in mind is that even if this
vehicle was operating at its peak efficiency it would not meet
the current needs of the city. It cannot service the higher,
highly populated residents that we have within Rosemount. The
age and condition also raise some safety issues for the public
and firefighters when it could be used.
As you can tell from the letter we received from Emergency
Apparatus Maintenance, they are planning on inspecting the
impeller while they are making the other necessary repairs. When
we had all of our pumps certified this past summer, this truck
did not pass certification and it is felt that wear to the
impeller caused by a design feature could be the cause of that.
Once they have gotten into this portion of the pump, we will make
a determination as to whether or not it would be beneficial to
replace this part at this time.
Monies for repairs during 1992 have been budgeted in two
different accounts. In Account #101-42210-01-221, $3,500 has
been budgeted. This amount was to cover all necessary repairs on
all 12 of our vehicles, but would be totally used for aerial
repairs at this time. In Account #101-42210-01-229, $850.00 has,
been budgeted for outside repairs. This again was scheduled to
cover those necessary outside repairs on all 12 of our vehicles
but would be expended at this time to get the aerial truck
operational. By expending the total amounts budgeted in these
two accounts, we would still fall short of the estimate to
complete repairs. The total bid for repairs at this time is
approximately $7,000. For this reason we would plan to postpone
all equipment purchases, and some optional training, in hopes of
offsetting the difference in the budgeted amounts, which would
allow us to remain within our 1992 budget.
I would mention, however, at this time that it may be necessary
in the latter part of the year to bring back to the council, for
their consideration, the possibility of overspending the budget.
We would have to do this if some of these anticipated expenses,
which were scheduled for in 1992, and which we are taking the
money from in order to do the necessary repairs on the aerial
truck, cannot be postponed until 1993.
As the facility expansion concept is explored and becomes more
definite in the future it will give us a better understanding and
direction as to how we should proceed with repairs to this
vehicle as they continue to occur. When a timeline has been
Page 4
developed for the facility expansion, we would then know whether
we need to repair the vehicle in a sort of stop -gap measure or in
a way that indicates it will be in service for quite some time.
My recommendation would be that we again begin to look at the
inclusion of this vehicle in a facility expansion program. If at
all possible, it appears to be advantageous to have a referendum
on the facility issue in 1992.
If a referendum is not possible, I would need to look at the
current space at the fire station, and possibly less desirable
solutions to housing a new aerial truck.