SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 3
CS&B AGENDA
APRIL 10, 1997
POLICY REPORT
PUBLIC SAFETY
Date: March 27, 1997
Dept. File No.
deploy_1.wpd
C . C . F i l e N o .
1006-1/1306-8
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: General Manager, Fire and Rescue Services
SUBJECT: Better City Government - Implementation of Fire and
Rescue Services Apparatus and Staff Redeployment
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. THAT Council provide the final approval of the fire
apparatus and staff redeployment recommended by the
consultant and staff (Option 6 of the TriData Report)
contained in Appendix A.
B. THAT Council approve the apparatus replacement schedule
contained in Appendix C of this report (which supports
the recommended redeployment and a 15 year average
first-line service life standard) and the supporting
funding from the Equipment Plant Account.
C. THAT Council authorize a delay in the disposal of two
engine trucks (in addition to the two currently
retained) to be used as multiple alarm reserve hose
wagons on an ongoing basis.
D. THAT Council authorize a delay in the disposal of one
engine truck and one ladder truck for use as training
vehicles at Fire and Rescue s Chess Street Training
Facility on an ongoing basis.
E. THAT Council authorize the General Manager of Fire and
Rescue Services to request that the Province of B.C.
fund an additional firefighter position at U.B.C. (under
our present service contract). This will maintain a
standard that is consistent with the level of fire
protection service which will be provided to the rest of
the City.
F. THAT Council authorize the addition of one Battalion
Chief position (per shift) contingent on sufficient
annual savings being realized as a result of this
redeployment.
GENERAL MANAGER S COMMENTS
The recommendations contained in this report represent a very
significant initiative for Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services.
The redeployment of our apparatus and staff will increase the
Services capabilities to function effectively as an all-hazard
response force , ultimately at significant cost savings. As a
major Better City Government Initiative, this has fulfilled our
goal to provide value-added services in a cost-effective manner
within existing resources.
While the recommendation to increase the number of Battalion
Chiefs by one per shift(Recommendation F) is supported by the
TriData Report, at this time we advise that this should only be
done once sufficient funding is found. This will be the subject
of a future Council Report. At that time, the justification will
be developed further.
COUNCIL POLICY
On April 14, 1994, Council approved a package of Fire and Rescue
Services budget reductions to fulfill the requirements of the
1994-96 Budget Management Program. However, the Fire Chief was
directed to report back in one year on whether to implement a
proposed reduction of one piece of fire apparatus (replace a
ladder and pumper truck at #21 Fire Hall with a combination piece
of equipment), or to achieve the same or greater savings through
a comprehensive redeployment of firefighters and equipment.
On July 5, 1995, Council approved the award of a consulting
contract to TriData Corporation for a comprehensive review of
fire hall locations, the deployment of emergency apparatus and
staff, and the City s insurance rating for commercial fire
protection. Fire and Rescue Services also identified this
initiative under the Better City Government Program.
On April 25, 1996, Council endorsed, in principle, a Fire and
Rescue Services apparatus and staff redeployment proposal known
as Option 6" as outlined in the TriData Study. Council also
directed the General Manager of Fire and Rescue Services to
report back with a detailed implementation plan for the proposed
redeployment of fire apparatus and staff.
SUMMARY
This report proposes an implementation plan and apparatus
replacement schedule for achieving the apparatus and staff
redeployment recommended as Option 6 in the TriData report and
endorsed in principle by Council on April 25, 1996. The
recommended redeployment will provide a great deal of flexibility
in terms of operating dual function fire companies. The 19 quint
companies and 10 engine companies will provide a total of 29
companies that can function as engines. The 10 engine companies
include 6 that would function as rescue/engine companies. Full
time Life Safety Units (LSUs) would be assigned to 6 fire halls,
including corner (of the City)fire halls where LSU personnel
could be used to increase the staffing of the quints to 6 person
crews. Two additional Life Safety Units would be staffed by
personnel who would be regularly assigned to the Tower and
another quint. This will allow these companies to respond to
medical incidents without their large fire suppression vehicles,
thus providing more effective service.
Engine and ladder trucks in the current fleet have been
maintained beyond their economic lives (pending the completion of
the deployment study) and this has resulted in excessive
apparatus downtime and repair costs. This report recommends a
somewhat accelerated apparatus replacement schedule, due in part
to a departmental decision to postpone apparatus replacements
over the past several years. In addition, staff cost savings
possible under the redeployment are generally not achievable
until the redeployment is substantially complete. There is also a
possibility of achieving some purchasing economies of scale by
ordering multiple units at the same time.
This report also makes several recommendations aimed at improving
response capability objectives (RCOs) at minimal cost. RCOs are
basically defined as Fire and Rescue Services ability to deliver
an appropriate combination of firefighting resources (staff,
apparatus and equipment) within specific response times. It is
recommended that several pieces of apparatus be held back from
disposal to use as reserves and training vehicles. Generally, the
most serviceable of the vehicles which are no longer appropriate
for use as first-line emergency apparatus will be retained in
these roles.
Cost savings will be achieved through reductions in the overall
numbers of officer positions (Captains and Lieutenants) and
reductions in apparatus replacement costs over the next 15 years.
The addition of a Battalion Chief position per shift (for a total
of 4)is also recommended when sufficient annual savings to fund
these positions are realized through this redeployment.
The annual savings in staff costs (officer differential) are
$335,000 per year by 1999 when the redeployment is fully
implemented based on the proposed apparatus replacement schedule.
It is recommended that these savings be allocated to the plant
account in 1999 to assist in funding equipment replacement. In
the future there is the potential for an additional saving of
$333,500. This is a full time firefighters position. It is the
departments intention to pursue the Provincial Government for
this funding based on the agreement to maintain the same level
of service for the University Endowment lands as is delivered to
the City of Vancouver. Savings from this position are
recommended to fill positions approved earlier by Council subject
to identification of a funding source.
PURPOSE
This report recommends final approval of a staffing and equipment
redeployment strategy for the Fire Department which was approved
in principle by Council on April 25, 1996. Council approval is
also requested for a series of recommendations that will improve
operating procedures in the department at no additional cost.
BACKGROUND
A major review of the deployment of Vancouver Fire and Rescue
Service s (V.F.R.S.) fire halls, apparatus, and staff was
completed by a fire service management consulting organization,
TriData Corporation. This company was retained by the City to
determine the most effective deployment of fire department
emergency personnel and equipment. The Steering Committee
included a representative from the City Manager's Office, the
Chairman of the Citizen's Advisory Committee, two Firefighter's
Union representatives, and representatives from Fire and Rescue
Administration.
A copy of the final report by TriData is on file in the City
Clerk s Office.
The consultants recommended a major shift in the types of
apparatus currently deployed to support the wide range of
protection services provided by Vancouver Fire and Rescue. The
proposed redeployment, known as Option 6" in the TriData Report
was accepted in principle by Council on April 25, 1996.
The redeployment plan will provide a flexible, efficient and
effective system to satisfy present and future fire protection,
first/co-responder emergency medical, disaster, hazardous
materials, and rescue response needs. At present, a minimum of 4
personnel are required to initiate an interior fire attack. Under
the new deployment, personnel that are currently less than
optimally utilized on aerial ladder trucks staffed with 3 people
will be used to provide 4-person crews on all primary fire
suppression vehicles and 2-person Life Support Units for many
medical responses.
The proposed redeployment is based on the Tridata report option
6" and is a significant transformation of the apparatus fleet.
Ultimately, the fleet will contain a higher component of flexible
multi-purpose quints and rescue engines , with secondary
emphasis on single purpose apparatus such as engines and aerial
ladders.
- Quints (with 4 person crews) are apparatus
which can fulfill the role of either an aerial ladder
truck or pumper truck depending on specific resource
requirements. A quint has five basic capabilities; it can
pump water, it carries water, it can lay hose, it has
ground ladders and it has an aerial ladder.
- Rescue Engines can provide the functionality of
engines, but also carry additional specialized rescue
equipment.
The recommendations also included Life Support Units (light
duty rescue units), which will primarily respond to emergency
first-responder medical incidents and provide support at fire
incidents. The two current Rescue and Safety companies will be
disbanded and the staff redeployed.
These changes will result in a more effective, efficient, and
flexible multi-hazard fire protection force to serve Vancouver s
growing population.
A second component of this Better City Government Initiative was
a review of the Commercial Fire Insurance Rating of the City of
Vancouver. The results of this portion of the review were
reported to Council on February 18, 1997. The consultant
concluded that, if completed today, a Fire Underwriters Survey
would likely result in a downgrade of Vancouver s current Class 1
rating (the highest rating achievable) to a Class 2 rating for
commercial fire insurance. The recommended apparatus and staff
redeployment, combined with several other recommendations may
help retain the Class 1 rating. The change in clarification can
mean up to a two percent saving on insurance premiums, for
commercial non sprinkled occupancies.
DISCUSSION
Officer Deployment
The proposed redeployment will result in a quint being placed
into every fire hall but one. Since the quint then becomes the
primary first-line fire apparatus, to maintain operational
consistency, the senior officer in the fire hall should be
assigned to it. Therefore, the Captains, as the senior fire hall
officers will be assigned to the quints, while engines will be
assigned to Lieutenants. LSUs will be staffed with two
firefighters.
These changes will not result in an overall staff reduction but
will reduce the officer complement to 19 Captains per shift(from
22), and 10 Lieutenants per shift(from 14). When fully
implemented in 1999, annual savings in officer staff costs would
be approximately $335,000. As noted later in this report, it is
proposed these savings be allocated to equipment replacement.
In addition, at present, engines are staffed with 4 personnel
while ladders carry 3 personnel. Under the TriData redeployment,
all engines and quints will carry 4 personnel. If Council
approves the implementation outlined in this report, it is the
departments intention to enter into negotiations with the
Province to have the staffing level at University Endowment Lands
increased by one full-time firefighter position. It was agreed
by the City and the Province that the same level of service would
be provided to the University as is provided to the City. This
will free up the equivalent of one full time firefighter position
per shift within the department and result in annual savings of
$333,500. It is proposed that these savings be reallocated
within the department to fill the positions in recruitment,
standard operating procedures and public education previously
approved by Council subject to funding being identified. The
annual cost of these positions are $242,000. The remaining funds
are requested to cover needed clerical support, costs that were
not identified in the original report to Council.
Equipment Replacement Schedule Changes
In 1969, the Engineering Department carried out an in-depth
technical evaluation of the replacement policy for fire
apparatus. That study recommended a replacement policy based on a
fifteen year life for all fire apparatus. Since that time, the
department has generally maintained a 15 year replacement
schedule with the exception of the last three years when
replacements were delayed pending the TriData study.
In evaluating apparatus replacement options to achieve the
redeployment option, a fifteen year replacement schedule has been
maintained. However, it is recognized that the changes in
response logistics (i.e. using smaller, less expensive vehicles
to respond to many medical emergency incidents) may impact
favorably on the economic life of large fire apparatus. On the
other hand, other factors such as call volume, training levels,
fill-ins needed to maintain coverage and availability of parts
have changed in the past two decades negatively impacting the
most economical service life of this equipment. Therefore, a
review of the replacement schedule will be carried out later this
year and reported back to Council.
Based on a 15 year equipment replacement schedule, there are
savings in staff costs available by achieving the new equipment
deployment on an accelerated basis. To achieve these savings the
implementation team recommends the purchase of the majority of
the quints and LSUs during the next two years rather than over
four years under the present replacement program. As fire
apparatus is being integrated into the Plant Account, this
replacement timing issue must be considered as part of the
overall operation of that fund. This funding issue is discussed
in the Financial Implications section of this report. Also, in
operational terms, a quick implementation will facilitate a more
efficient training of personnel. There may also be cost
advantages to issuing equipment orders for multiple identical units.
OTHER OPERATING CHANGES
Improved Secondary Response Model
As a response to the 1994-1996 Budget Management Program, the
department agreed to use an industry standard secondary response
model to reduce its training costs. Under this model, up to
five first-line apparatus (2 engines, 2 ladders and 1 rescue
vehicle) can be simultaneously unavailable for immediate response
to emergency incidents due to the heavy requirements for
maintenance and upgrade training, first-responder certification
and other requirements. While in secondary response, the crews
and equipment may be outside of their normal response districts,
and are not dispatched to incidents unless there are two
simultaneous fires in the City. Under some training situations,
apparatus is physically dedicated to a particular drill and may
not be quickly placed back into service for emergency response.
The secondary response model also results in a significant amount
of apparatus movement to training sites, and the corresponding
movement of apparatus to back fill at vacant fire halls.
In order to increase the department s ability to respond, the
Implementation Team recommends that a ladder (or quint) and
engine truck be held back from disposal after the first-line
service life. This equipment will be primarily used at the Chess
Street Fire Training facility in support of training activities.
Rather than taking the equipment out-of-service, crews will use
the on-site apparatus. This will improve our overall response
capability objectives (RCOs). The costs will be in maintenance
and a marginally lower resale value for the apparatus.
Changes in Standard Response Levels
To further improve current RCOs, under the new deployment, more
staff will be routinely delivered to a fire scene than currently
since an additional engine will be added to the current response
levels. However, the rare occurrence of several simultaneous
major emergency events can reduce firefighting resource levels to
unacceptable levels. The Implementation Team therefore also
recommends holding two additional engines back from disposal to
be used as multiple alarm reserve engines, again with a view to
improving our RCOs at minimal costs. The department currently has
two engines , referred to as hose wagons, which are used in this
role. This would allow four engines to be staffed in the event
of major incidents which threaten to overwhelm the normal level
of resources. Staffing would be achieved by either calling in
off-duty firefighters or staffed with LSU crews, depending on the
situation. As in the case of the engine and ladder held back for
training, the costs incurred by these engines will be maintenance
and marginally lower resale value.
A review of the response levels to automatic fire alarms was also
carried out. For reported and confirmed structure fires the
response level has not been changed. However, for automatic
alarms relayed from alarm monitoring companies, the response
level has been reduced. For buildings under 4 stories in height
the Department now sends only one apparatus. For buildings from 4
to 8 stories 2 apparatus are sent, and for over 8 stories 3
apparatus plus a Battalion Chief are dispatched. The reductions
in response levels to these types of alarms is based on
experience with these alarms. The net effect is to allow us to
maintain our RCOs as well as a net reduction in noise levels and
risks to citizens and firefighters during unnecessary emergency
responses.
The number of false alarms has been growing at a steady level
over the past number of years and is a source of concern.
Apparatus and crews are now responding to over 8,000 false
alarm/no fire incidents per year. A future report to Council will
outline a recommended false alarm reduction strategy.
Requirement for Additional Battalion Chief
Prior to January 15, 1995, the Vancouver Fire Department was
divided into four Districts. These four Districts were managed
by senior officers. An Operational Assistant Chief was
responsible for supervising one District and three Battalion
Chiefs were responsible for the supervision in each of the three
remaining Districts. On January 16, 1995 the Operational
Assistant Chiefs converted to day shifts thus in effect
eliminating the District the Assistant Chief was responsible for
supervising. The responsibility of supervision for that
eliminated District was transferred to the three remaining
Battalion Chiefs.
On October 16, 1996 the Vancouver Fire Department began providing
contract fire protection services to the University Endowment
Lands. The University Fire Department prior to the amalgamation
had one Operational Assistant Chief on each shift responsible for
the daily control and operations of the emergency services within
that geographic area.
Today Vancouver Fire and Rescue Services uses three Battalion
Chiefs to effectively control an area that five senior officer
were responsible for two and one-half years ago. This command
system is not working efficiently. The increasing complexity of
the responsibilities of the Battalion Chief within each District,
the increased size of the geographic area of responsibility for
the Battalion Chief, and the managerial expectations of the
Battalion Chief of today suggests that a fourth district under a
fourth Battalion Chief should be considered. The current
deficiency in the number of senior fire ground commanders was
recognized in the TriData Study.
The TriData Implementation Planning team has recommended that an
additional Battalion Chief position per shift be created and
funded once the identified cost savings from redeployment have
been demonstrated. Prior to implementation, a further report to
Council will be presented providing further justification and
funding sources.
U.B.C.
To preserve the same standard of apparatus staffing at U.B.C. as
in the rest of the City, an additional firefighter position at an
annual cost of approximately $325,000 (based on 10th year
firefighter rates) is required. This goes beyond the level
required under the present service contract with the Province (7
firefighters on duty per shift). It is recommended that the City
approach the Province to fund this additional position,
particularly considering the current and the potential projected
growth in the area and the risk levels.
Storage of Reserve Apparatus
Actual storage space for reserve fire apparatus in current fire
halls is becoming very limited. In addition, compared to other
types of storage, using fire halls as storage is not particularly
economical. A review of potential alternative apparatus storage
facilities and the associated costs will be carried out and
reported back to Council at a later date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
The overall noise impact and diesel exhaust emissions will be
reduced due to the use of smaller equipment for most medical
incidents. Also, the dedicated use of training apparatus, rather
than moving vehicles back and forth to the training site, will
help reduce noise and pollution levels.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The full implementation of the recommended redeployment plan,
including the use of multi-purpose vehicles, more practical
vehicles for medical responses, and increased number of rescue
vehicles and technical rescue support units, will provide a much
more effective multi-hazard emergency response force. This can
be done without compromising the ability to safely and
effectively fight fires. Vancouver Fire and Rescue s increased
capability to respond effectively to the wide variety of
potential risks present in Vancouver today, including major
disasters such as earthquakes, will reduce the severity of the
impacts on Vancouver s residents.
PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS
Three Captain positions and four Lieutenants positions per shift
will revert to firefighter positions. This can be accomplished
very quickly through normal attrition so no current officer will
be reduced in rank.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: FUNDING FROM THE PLANT ACCOUNT
When considering the 1996 Operating Budget, Council approved a
plan to move all fire apparatus to the Plant Account. This has
the advantage of smoothing the peaks and valleys associated with
the replacement costs of fire equipment in the annual Operating
Budget. The plan provides for new equipment to be purchased by
the Plant Account as it is replaced and for rental rate funding
to be added to the Fire Department budget as the equipment comes
on stream to provide for its eventual replacement.
The transfer of fire equipment to the Plant Account is unusual in
that it is the first time that a major component of the City
fleet has been moved into the Plant Account without accompanying
funding. In short, the expectation is that the Plant Account
will finance the replacement of the fire equipment rather than
accept the equipment paid for and then accumulate funds for its
eventual replacement as is the case for most other equipment.
This has significant consequences for the cash-flow in the Plant
Account which was not been set up to operate in this fashion. As
a result, staff have reviewed the cash-flow projections for the
Plant Account to determine its ability to maintain its primary
objective--to provide funding for equipment replacements in a
normal manner--and to accommodate the replacement of fire
equipment.
Based on the replacement schedule proposed by the Fire
Department, the Plant Account will assume responsibility for the
initial purchase of approximately $14.6 million of fire equipment
for which there is currently no replacement provision. Taken
alone, this expenditure over the next 15 years will leave the
Plant Account in a deficit position because the annual
replacement schedule never provides sufficient funding to make up
for the unfunded early purchases.
However, considered as part of the overall cash-flow of the Plant
Account, the fire equipment replacement schedule is more easily
accommodated because, at present, accumulated replacement funds
from all equipment in the Plant Account exceeds the projected
annual replacement costs. Based on current projections, the
Plant Account will have a positive cash balance until about the
year 2010 at which time, the replacement of fire equipment being
purchased in 1996/97 leaves the Plant Account in a temporary
cash-flow deficit position. This is cause for concern since a
cash infusion to the fund would be required to maintain the
overall equipment replacement schedule.
The way to deal with this situation would be to provide
additional funding to the Plant Account now to guard against the
future cash-flow shortfall. The proposal to re-equip and
redeploy the Fire Department provides an opportunity to allocate
that funding, beginning in 1999. By adopting the replacement
schedule identified in this report, the Fire Department will
produce operating savings estimated at $335,000 annually as a
result of eliminating officer positions. It is recommended that
those savings be allocated to the Plant Account beginning in
1999.
This additional capital infusion over the next decade does not
completely eliminate the projected cash-flow problems in the
Plant Account. As the first round of equipment purchased for the
Fire Department comes up for replacement, additional funding may
have to be provided. However, before those potential problems
arise, the Fire Department and Fleet Management will have had the
opportunity to review and adjust the replacement schedule and the
rental rates for the new equipment. This situation will also be
reviewed as part of a more comprehensive review of the Plant
Account being undertaken by Fleet Management and Financial
Services. However, it should be noted now that additional
funding, from the Operating or Capital Budgets may be required in
future years.
It should be noted that the impact of not undertaking this
replacement is that costs to the operating budget will be much
higher over the next 15 years. The savings result from the
conversion of the fleet to fewer and less expensive apparatus and
from the officer cost savings that arise from the change.
With these cautions, the Director of Finance and the Fleet
Manager recommend that Council approve the replacement schedule
proposed by the Fire Department and that the savings identified
as part of the redeployment be allocated to the Plant Account to
reduce the overall cash-flow shortfall identified in the Plant
Account.
IMPLEMENTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
The six quints which have already been tendered as a result of
the postponed replacements over the past several years, and
funded through existing funding in the Plant Account, will be
delivered late this year. Additional equipment will be delivered
and put into service beginning in 1998. Staff cost savings due to
the reduction in the number of officer positions will occur as
the new equipment is put into service.
A report to Council on the most economical service life for fire
apparatus will be forthcoming during the second half of 1997.
Another report to Council is planned for late 1997 and will deal
with options to reduce the number of false alarms responded to by
Fire and Rescue Services.
CONCLUSIONS
This redeployment of emergency fire apparatus and staff will
result in a cost-effective solution for meeting the City of
Vancouver's emergency response needs. Significant annual cost
savings can be achieved without sacrificing our ability to meet
the primary risks facing the citizens.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A
RECOMMENDED DEPLOYMENT (OPTION 6 - TRIDATA REPORT)
19 Quints, 6 Rescue Engines, 4 Engines, 8 Life Support Units
FIRE 1st Personnel 2nd Personnel 3rd Personnel TOTAL
HALL (Quint) Personnel
1 Q1 4 4
2 Q2 4 LS2 2 6
3 Q3 4 E3 4 LS3 2 10
4 E4 4 Tw4 -* LS4 2 7
5 Q5 4 LS5 2 6
6 Q6 4 E6 4 8
7 Q7 4 R/E7 4 8
8 Q8 4 LS8 2 6
9 Q9 4 R/E9 4 8
10 E10 4 Q10 4* LS10 21 8*
12 Q12 4 R/E12 4 8
13 Q13 4 4
14 Q14 4 LS14 2 6
15 Q15 4 R/E15 4 8
17 Q17 4 R/E17 4 8
18 Q18 4 4
19 Q19 4 4
20 Q20 4 4
21 Q21 4 R/E21 4 8
22 Q22 4 LS22 2 6
TOTAL 20 80 1O 38 8 141 131
1. One staff member cross-manned from quint
* Funding for one position sought from the Province.
Current Replacement Program - apparatus replacement program based
on oldest spare
Year Engine Age Ladder Age Rescue Age Annual Cost
1997 A9138 22 A9152 20 A9212 16 $1,200,000
1998 A9169 20 A9187 19 A9203 9 $1,200,000
1999 A9171 20 A9162 20 $1,130,000
2000 A9114 20 A9179 21 $1,130,000
2001 A9141 21 $ 500,000
2002 A9193 21 $ 500,000
2003 A9198 21 $ 500,000
2004 A9188 22 $1,000,000
A9199 22
2005 A9177 18 $1,000,000
A9149 18
2006 A9166 17 $ 500,000
2007 A9126 18 A9178 24 $1,130,000
2008 A9109 18 $1,500,000 A9155 21
A9197 21
2009 A9104 18 A9146 29 $2,260,000
A9108 18 A9122 18
2010 B9158 16 A9175 27 $2,260,000
B9184 16 B9159 16
2011 B9160 17 A9120 20 $1,760,000
B9167 17
Total # Engines 21
Total # Ladders 11
Total Rescue and Safety 2
Replacement costs: Engines at $500,000 X 21 = $ 10,500,000
Ladders at $630,000 X 11 = $ 6,930,000
Rescues at $70,000 X 2 = $ 140,000
Total $ 17,570,000
Annualized cost over 15 years in constant dollars:$ 1,171,300
Proposed Replacement Program - apparatus replacement program based on oldest
spare.
Year Engine Age Quint Age L.S.U. s Annual Cost
1997 A9138* 23 A9152 20 4 $3,040,000
A9169* 19 A9187 18
1998 A9171* 19 A9162 19 4 $3,040,000
A9114* 18 A9179 19
2004 4 (chassis) $ 280,000
2005 A9149 18 4 (chassis $1,280,000
A9177 18
2006 A9166 17 A9122 15 $1,130,000
2007 A9126 18 A9120 16 $1,130,000
2009 A9109 20 B9167 15 $2,260,000
A9197 20 B9159 15
2010 B9158 16 $1,500,000
B9184 16
A9108 19
2011 B9160 17 4 $1,020,000
Total Engines 10 Total Quints 12 Total LSUs (12 Box and chassis,
8 chassis)
Replacement Costs Engines at $500,000 X 10 = $5,000,000
Quints at $630,000 X 12 = $7,560,000
L.S.U. s at $130,000 X 12 = $1,560,000
L.S.U. s chassis at $70,000 X 8 = $ 560,000
Total Costs $14,680,000
Annualized cost over 15 years in constant dollars: $ 978,700
* The four engines in 1997 and 1998 will be replaced with
quints.