WINNING NARRATIVE 2004



PROBLEM STATEMENT.

The XXXXX volunteer fire department is not able to adequately fight fires due to the very old tanker and pumper vehicles which we use, their physical limitations, mechanical problems, and inadequate capacities. This inability affects not only our own community, but it cripples our ability to be a good, useful mutual aid partner with other fire departments.

================

THE PROJECT THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING TO BE FUNDED
-- AND --
HOW YOU PLAN TO USE THE GRANT FUNDS FOR EACH MAJOR BUDGET ACTIVITY AS LISTED ON THE BUDGET FORM.

The department will purchase one new tanker/pumper in order to replace two very old vehicles: a 1967 Dodge tanker and a 1976 Chevrolet pumper. There will be efficiencies and cost savings -– particularly in terms of repairs and maintenance –- replacing these two poor quality vehicles with a single, new tanker/pumper. We have obtained vendors’ cost estimates for this unit, priced for the time of delivery. The tanker/pumper will meet applicable NFPA standards.

The tanker/pumper will be a vehicle with the following specifications: 2,000 gallon tanker capacity; 1,250 gallon per minute pumping capacity; 2 1/2-inch hydraulic fill; rear and dump valves; standard compartments and lighting; hose carriers; two 4-inch PVC hoses for a PTO pump; and two 5-inch PVC hoses for the midship pump.

Cost proposals have been received from two vendors: Rosenbauer America; and Midwest Fire Equipment & Repair Company.

================

WHY THIS PROGRAM WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO YOUR COMMUNITY AND/OR YOUR DEPARTMENT.

AGE ISSUES. NFPA-1901 Annex D “Guidelines for First Line and Reserve Apparatus” recommends that trucks built prior to 1979 should be retired or at the very least refurbished and equipped with as many safety upgrades as possible. The 1967 tanker and the 1976 pumper both fail to comply with this standard. For reasons explained later in this narrative, it is not cost-effective to consider refurbishing XXXXX’s tanker/pumper.

MECHANICAL PROBLEMS.

The 1967 tanker (which is to be replaced) has a top speed of only 45 mph when the vehicle is loaded. This makes “rapid” transportation to a fire scene very difficult. The delay caused by the worn-out tanker can waste previous firefighting time. The tank itself is deteriorating with rust. Particles dislodge from the rusting tank and these will frequently ruin the pumps. Also, the frame of this vehicle is too light for the kind of weight load it must carry. This is a dangerous situation which needs to be corrected. We often must drive 15 miles in order to refill, when a fire occurs on the outskirts of our primary area. The slow, deteriorating 1967 tanker is no longer up to the task

The 1976 pumper’s tank can only be described as being in very, very poor condition. It’s tank is significantly rusted. The pump is deteriorating and even though we conduct maintenance several times a year, we constantly are needing to replace seals on the pump. Without a good seal, the pump cannot deliver water adequately.

These mechanical problems put both vehicles out of compliance with NFPA-1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus (Chapter 12, Chassis and Vehicle Components). Furthermore, these constant mechanical problems jeopardize efficient firefighting, prevent dependable operation, and raise serious safety concerns.

CAPACITY PROBLEMS.

The 1967 tanker (which is to be replaced) holds 1,200 gallons. This amount will be pumped out in three minutes.

The 1976 pumper has a 750 gallon carrying capacity and pumps at a rate of 750 gpm. This is a very short water capacity. If all three ports on the pumper are used simultaneously (which is often the case with a fire of any real size), the water is gone in one minute. We never have the quantity of pumped water that we would need for a large fire.

INTERRELATED PROBLEMS.

The capacity and mechanical problems of these two vehicles complement each other in a very negative manner. If the problems were occurring only in one of the two vehicles, we might be able to deal with the situation. But when both are constant headaches and serve us so poorly, the difficulties of providing good-quality fire protection simply multiply.

One example occurred just a year ago at a house fire. We called for Mutual Aid and the other department arrived with a 1,250 gpm pumper. We, on the other hand, ran out of water in our tanker. As a result, we were unable to feed water fast enough into their pumps. This deficiency on our part comes close to defeating the whole purpose of Mutual Aid.

POSSIBILITY OF REPAIR. Although the department has repeatedly attempted to have these problems repaired, there doesn’t seem to be much “fix” left in either the 1967 tanker or the 1976 pumper. The age and other problems which affect both vehicles would make this kind of expense a very poor investment of funds. It is not at all cost-effective to spend much more money at all on vehicles which really should be replaced.

COOPERATION AMONG FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND INTEROPERABILITY. XXXXX’s problems with its tanker and pumper handicap the department’s ability to be a good partner with its fellow mutual aid members:

a.) Because XXXXX’s tanker and pumper can only deliver very limited amounts of water, this problem defeats much of the purpose of XXXXX’s mutual aid agreements. There have been instances when XXXXX’s inadequate vehicles have prevented the department from effectively responding to mutual aid calls (as was shown in the example cited above.) XXXXX cannot dependably assist in such situations. This creates a hazard for regional fire protection.

b.) XXXXX’s lack of either an adequate tanker or pumper also forces XXXXX to more frequently call upon their mutual aid partners for help, thereby burdening other departments because of XXXXX’s own pumping limitations.

By purchasing a new tanker/pumper vehicle, XXXXX will be able to fully contribute as a member of their mutual aid group, providing expanded firefighting capacity at home and to other communities.

================

WHY THIS PROJECT CANNOT BE FUNDED SOLELY THROUGH LOCAL FUNDING.

Our fire department faces severe financial limitations. We do not have the resources to make these purchases on our own.

1.) Depressed Local Incomes. XXXXX is located in a highly agricultural area. This leaves our local economy very vulnerable to farm economy, which has been stagnant for many years. For example, the March price a local farmer receives for a bushel of corn today (about $3.00) is less than the price received for a bushel of corn in 1983 ($3.21). This is comparable to a white-collar employee’s salary being no higher than what her father earned. These low income conditions seriously handicap our ability to fully fund fire department improvements on our own.

2.) The following U.S. Census 2000 data points out XXXXX’s low-income conditions:

2a.) Our median household income is $27,656, 41% lower than across Minnesota as a whole ($47,111).

2b.) Median family income in XXXXX is $35,500, 37% lower than across Minnesota as a whole ($56,874).

2c.) Per capita income in XXXXX is $15,275, 34% lower than Minnesota as a whole ($23,198).

2d.) Our individual poverty rate is 10.6%, compared to 7.9% across Minnesota.

2e.) Our family poverty rate is 6.3%, compared to 5.1% across Minnesota.

3.) Elderly Population and Low Incomes. The 2000 Census shows that XXXXX has 22.7% of our population being age 65 or older. Because of this proportion of the elderly, their incomes take on additional importance. The mean retirement income in XXXXX is only $9,226, which is 45% lower than statewide ($17,034). This means that for a significant portion of our local population, the local cost (taxes, etc.) of equipping our fire department can be an even greater financial burden.

4.) Small Local Budget. Our community does not have the financial capacity to purchase this important equipment in a timely manner. Our department’s average total budget over several years has been about $35,000. This must cover our regular costs of operations, maintenance, supplies, and other necessary costs. This limited operating budget leaves us no room for a purchase of this type. With the budget crunch that the State has put us in this year (see next paragraph), there is no way that the local taxpayers could or would fund a project of this size. Even if we applied every dollar of our annual budget towards the purchase of this tanker/pumper, it would take almost four years’ worth of that budget to do so.

5.) Reductions in State Aid. Minnesota currently faces a $4.2 billion state budget deficit for the coming two years. In an attempt to deal with this huge deficit, State government is proposing a cut in aid funds which flow through to municipalities (LGA, or Local Government Aid). This State Aid has been a vital part of XXXXX’s overall budget. “For 2004, Minnesota cities are facing the most difficult financial circumstances in decades. Action by the 2003 Legislature has substantially reduced Local Government Aid and Market Value Homestead Credit payments to cities, while at the same time imposing some of the most severe levy limits in history. Cities will be considering a combination of strategies for meeting these challenges, including reducing or even eliminating some services.” (Source: League of Minnesota Cities, March 2004)

5a.) In 2003 we faced a cut of $8,726 in State Aid. This has grown much worse for 2004, when a $19,944 cut represented 11% of the year’s revenue base for the city.

5b.) These State Aid are very significant reductions for a community of XXXXX’s size. As the impact of the cuts unfold, they will put a serious strain on our overall city budget, making it even less possible for us to purchase the kind of vehicle we propose in this application, or to keep up with future prices.

================

ANY ADDITIONAL RELEVANT INFORMATION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING YOUR APPLICATION.

1.) Our department protects 72 square miles of rural township land, along with the City of XXXXX. The City has a 2000 Census population of 278. When the rural areas of our district are added in, we serve many more residents in addition to their homes, businesses, barns, and farm buildings.

2.) Hazardous Situations. Our department also must confront potentially hazardous infrastructure that can jeopardize the personal safety of our firefighters. We have a large agricultural chemical plant, grain elevator, major natural gas pipeline (Great Plains Natural Gas Co.), and LP petroleum bulk storage facilities in XXXXX. A fire or other disaster at any of these would immediately call for firefighting capacity of the kind that our current tanker/pumper simply cannot provide.