Loading...
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.