Replacement Schedules Of Fire Apparatus

In August of 2004, the Fire Apparatus Manufacturer’s Association (FAMA) produced a detailed White Paper on apparatus replacement. See above.

Click Here To Read Complete White Paper

From The Chief Fire Officer’s Desk Reference:

From FirefightingInCanada.com

“On a strategic level, it makes sense to create a long-term policy for ongoing replacement of fire apparatus first, and then conduct need studies on a case-by-case basis as required. This is what Alberta's Bonnyville Regional Fire Authority (BRFA) - which protects the Municipal District of Bonnyville and the Town of Bonnyville - did about five years ago, says Regional Fire Chief Bryan McEvoy.”

"We sat down with our municipal council and jointly established a 15 year replacement cycle for our apparatus," Chief McEvoy tells Fire Fighting In Canada. "When it came time to switch out equipment acquired in 1991, the rules were already in place. This keeps the process simple and free of politics, and allows us to focus on the nuts-and-bolts of replacing equipment properly. We had also done the research necessary to determine what kind of basic truck design we wanted to deploy, so that the needs study could focus on customization."

From the Laguna Beach, California website:

“Most municipal fire departments in Southern California have adopted a policy of replacing fire engines on a 10 to 15 year schedule.

Recommendation:

The scheduled replacement cycle for fire engines should be changed from twenty years to fifteen years of front line service and five years of reserve service. The Fire Chief and Mechanic Maintenance Supervisor will evaluate each apparatus once the 15 year mark is reached and make a decision whether to remove from front line duty based on its condition.”

From Richmond Fire/Rescue:

“RFR is already extending the useful life of fire apparatus by deferring the replacements beyond the 15-year life cycle.  With this initiative comes increased costs of repairs and maintenance and a reduction in vehicle reliability.  Attempting to extend beyond a 15-year life cycle will increase the risks and may result in costs that outweigh any optional benefits.”

The MVFD has been trying to replace the rapidly aging fleet of fire apparatus since 2002.  Mr. St. John and Mrs. Strobel stonewalled this effort. There was an original plan to replace and/or refurbish three pieces of apparatus in 2003 and bond the entire project. Mr. St. John allowed politics to enter into the picture, and the end result was a fleet of fire apparatus that includes:

Engine 1 17 years old

Engine 2 27 years old

Engine 3 20 years old

Engine 4 21 years old

Rescue 1 30 years old.

This puts an extraordinary burden on our taxpayers.  The notion that the cost of fire apparatus will go down is just not true. Since 2003, the cost of this apparatus has grown exponentially. In the not too distant future Middlebury will need to replace more than one engine.

Attempting to block the replacement of this important piece of lifesaving equipment is certainly not in the best interest of the taxpayers pocketbooks, nor the safety of our firefighters and the residents they protect.