Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Apparatus Replacement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears concerns over replacement rate and supply-chain delays for fire apparatus
Summary
Staff told the Public Safety Committee the apparatus replacement program plans dozens of vehicle replacements over six years but market consolidation and multi-year vendor backlogs have raised costs and delivery delays; members probed whether current ambulance replacement rates are sufficient.
The committee examined the Fire & Rescue apparatus replacement program during its March 9 work session, noting planned replacements across multiple vehicle classes and a growing gap between recommended and actual ambulance replacements.
Council staff described the six-year replacement plan that includes six aerials, 40 EMS units, 15 engines, and several specialty vehicles. "The list may change slightly as their needs are constantly reassessed," said Ms. Farag. Staff said funding will come from a mix of short-term financing and fire funds, with EMST revenue as one source of debt service in the operating budget.
Staff highlighted that ambulances should be replaced at about nine per year to maintain fleet age goals, but currently only six per year are being replaced. "One of my outstanding questions to the fire department was whether or not local fire and rescue departments were making up this difference with their own purchases," Ms. Farag said. Chief Charles Bailey told the committee that LFRDs own some apparatus while the county covers maintenance and insurance.
Committee members raised supply-chain concerns. Staff noted industry consolidation—major manufacturers with multi-year backlogs—and rising unit prices, citing a mid-2010s typical engine cost of $300,000–$500,000 versus current prices above $1,000,000 for some models. That consolidation has lengthened delivery lead times to two to three years for new apparatus and complicated parts availability, which in one national example left a vehicle out of service for almost a year. Members asked staff to revisit replacement timing and contingency planning during the fall budget cycle.
The presentation underscored trade-offs between renovating older stations and acquiring land and building new facilities, and the committee discussed alternatives such as paramedic chase cars and potential coordination with the Division of Fleet Management for light-duty vehicles. No formal capital appropriation was approved at the work session; staff recommended approval of the CIP elements and the committee registered assent on multiple individual projects later in the agenda.
