Eastvale council approves purchase of 107-foot aerial ladder truck, 4–0

Eastvale — The City Council voted 4–0 to approve the purchase of a 107-foot aerial ladder truck (a Quint) and to staff it under the council’s preferred option that preserves the city's dedicated medic squad while adding three firefighters.

The fire chief, presenting the proposal, said the Quint will give the city vertical reach to access roofs and upper floors of multi‑story hotels, apartment complexes and commercial buildings and reduce dependence on mutual‑aid ladder trucks from neighboring cities. “The bottom line is the aerial ladder truck protects lives, property, and the economic stability of our community,” the fire chief said.

Why it matters: staff and the chief argued that Eastvale’s growth — new hotels, multi‑story condos and warehouses with solar panels — has increased the city’s need for an on‑site aerial device. The presentation noted about 200 ladder‑truck responses per year into the city during the 2021–Feb. 15 data window, and said outside resources may not always be available when needed.

Cost and staffing: staff provided a fiscal estimate for a 107‑foot Quint with equipment. The base cost listed was about $2.166 million (with a 10% contingency noted), equipment costs near $345,000, and a total “not to exceed” estimate of $2.762 million. The chief offered two staffing options: the council’s approved Option 1 keeps Medic Squad 27 in place and adds three firefighters, which staff estimated would raise the 2028–29 budget by about $742,000; Option 2 would have eliminated three positions by cross‑staffing the Quint and decommissioning the dedicated medic squad, producing a short‑term budgetary savings but reducing medical response capacity.

Council discussion and vote: council members pressed for call‑type data and for clarification about a reserve engine and mutual‑aid patterns. Several members emphasized life‑safety concerns and the long‑term plan for a third fire station before endorsing the chief’s recommendation. The motion to approve Option 1 was made by Council member McMinn, seconded by Council member Dinko, and passed 4–0.

What happens next: staff noted that ordering now would lock in price and that the build time was estimated at about 550 days; under the procurement arrangement the city does not need to pay until delivery. Council did not amend the funding package at the meeting; implementation timing and exact budget adjustments will be worked into the capital plan and future budget cycles.

(Reporting note: direct quotations and cost figures reflect the presentation and council discussion recorded in the meeting transcript.)