Lake Zurich to sell tower ladder « chicagoareafire.com

Lake Zurich to sell tower ladder

Lake Zurich Fire Department to sell tower ladder

Tags: Lake Zurich Fire Department, Lake Zurich to sell tower ladder

This entry was posted on November 20, 2012, 7:33 AM and is filed under Fire Department History, Fire Service News. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

18 Comments (and 2 trackbacks)

Pingback: Lake Zurich looks for cuts in public safety budgets « chicagoareafire.com
Pingback: Des Plaines’ new/used tower ladder « chicagoareafire.com
#1 by ChiefKahuna on November 22, 2012 - 10:54 PM

Hey Marco, you need chiefs, sometimes many of them,to deal with screwballs like you, bad thought of countywide fire departments. Looks good on paper , but in reality it bl ws,
#2 by Kyle on November 21, 2012 - 5:10 PM

Why not donate or sell graciously (couple grand) to whatever town they use for a mutual aid truck? This way that dept has its front line truck and a reserve truck? Keeping it in the family so to say. Help the dept that’s helping you.
#3 by Martin on November 21, 2012 - 4:47 PM

Make them car pool with the Chief
#4 by Marco on November 21, 2012 - 3:23 PM

THANK YOU JOHN! Everything he said is 100% accurate. If nothing else, if the entire county could create a group purchasing plan, it would save TONS of money for all departments. Every department does NOT need completely, perfectly, specified units. Plus, if you start speccing units similarly across department lines, it will make mutual aid operations easier!

And in regards to the management comment, again, I AGREE. Not every department needs an A/C, 2 D/Cs, and a Chief. Too many bugles!
#5 by JohnH on November 21, 2012 - 12:19 PM

“Planning for the worst”, as someone said, does not mean that you keep expensive, lightly-used apparatus in your department. A 747 jumbo jet could crash in your town, too, but that doesn’t mean that you keep a fleet of ARFF units in town to “plan for the worst”. What all of this is leading toward is a consolidation of fire services….along the lines of county-wide fire departments, where you lose DOZENS of high-cost ‘management’ and are able to make more efficient purchasing decisions with respect to equipment, stations, etc. If all of these towns pooled tax revenues to support a countywide fire department, then I’d bet they’d be surprised at how many efficiencies (and lower costs) could be identified.
#6 by Tom on November 20, 2012 - 10:55 PM

Mutual aid is a band aid for the real problem of not having adequate services. Now the politicians understand it and are using it to their advantage. We have nobody to blame but ourselves. We need to be the leaders and push for the consolidation of services. This will help preserve manpower while becoming more efficient. Municipalities no longer have the money.
If ISO is useless, what standard do you go by?
What’s next telling your full time department you need four on rig, while only having two on a rig at your part time department?
#7 by Scott on November 20, 2012 - 8:21 PM

LZ runs very minimal manning. The truck from my understanding is not manned or jump company if personnel are in the station. While it may not be any where close to the “fire capital” of the world, I am active member of a busy, fully staffed and utilized suburban dept (NOT LZ) and as much as budget and manning are at the forefront of concern and planning, the one time you may need that truck and don’t have it could cost a life. I believe in being prepared and planning for the worst, that is the Fire Services job.

And if anyone follows LZ, unfortunately they seemed to use their truck for the few fires they do get every year for the defensive attack. Lack of initial manpower and water may be factors in that. Not a fault of the guys in trying, that is always done.
#8 by Tom Foley on November 20, 2012 - 8:08 PM

I have a serious question about this type of cutback, especially as we see more of it.

How is it fair for another city’s department to maintain and staff a ladder truck when yours cuts it?

So, city A makes a cutback (eliminates a ladder) and expects city B to send out the resource when they need it all while city B is stuck paying for maintenance, staff, and eventual replacement of the unit. Seems to me, the other departments should at least all pitch in to share expenses of this shared resource.

Not sure this is exactly mutual aid. To me, mutual aid is… well… mutual. So how it it mutual for you to always send me a ladder when I need it, but I have nothing in return?
#9 by Marco on November 20, 2012 - 6:30 PM

This is going to become more and more common…and guess what, it’s NOT A BAD THING. There is such a duplication of resources across much of this area!

Let’s look at a part of MABAS 10 (note: this is NOT a knock on MABAS 10…this is MY division, so just using it as the information is most readily available):

Hinsdale: 3 engines, truck, 2 ambulances
Western Springs: 3 engines, truck, 2 ambulances
Clarendon Hills: Engine, Truck, Squad, Ambulance
Pleasantview: 2 trucks, 2 engines, 2 ambulances
Lyons: 3 engines, ambulance
Tri-State: 4 ambulances, 2 squad, 3 engine, 1 squirt, 1 truck

And most of these are NOT staffed! But, they still cost us THOUSANDS in maintenance, annual testing, etc. For little-to-no benefit. It would be one thing if these departments burn…but, virtually none of them do, and that’s true for most of the Chicago area.
#10 by thefiremang on November 20, 2012 - 5:53 PM

MABAS READINESS CENTER AND EACH DIVISION HAS UNITS FOR USE, THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT ALL CHIP IN FOR SUCH AS HAZ MAT, FOAM TRUCKS, TRT , MOBILE VENTILATION UNIT, JUST CALL FOR IT WHEN YOU NEED IT. THE SAYING IS YOU STEAL FROM PAUL TO PAY PETER.
#11 by Mike on November 20, 2012 - 2:46 PM

No…no…keep the truck for the one time a year that they take it out. It looks much better in the parade than a new engine would.
Also, they should buy a hazmat truck, decon truck, foam truck, trench rescue truck, vertical rescue truck, mobile ventilation truck, public education truck….etc.
Every department should have all of these, because when they have that incident every five years that require them, it makes much more sense than sharing resources from neighboring agencies.
#12 by Sell Da Truck on November 20, 2012 - 2:26 PM

So the chief would rather run 4 engines than 3 engines and a truck?
#13 by Confused on November 20, 2012 - 2:11 PM

Hmmm…according to their website “This $900,000 vehicle was donated to the department by Motorola and Deer Park Town Center.” So why sell a piece of valuable apparatus that you got for FREE and will never have the opportunity to purchase again and leave the origination with one piece of reserve apparatus for 4 stations? Maybe in time a re-evaluation will determine a need for an aerial device.Makes no sense….
#14 by Mike on November 20, 2012 - 2:06 PM

If you read the article correctly, as we learned to do in college…you will see they are not disbanding a company. They are replacing a Truck that never gets used with an Engine.
My point is that it is hard to justify a single-role piece of apparatus when there are more versatile options. I never championed disbanding companies.
#15 by Michael M on November 20, 2012 - 2:02 PM

How many firefighters are on duty on any given day? Is the tower ladder currently manned full time? Or is it a Jump company? Which manufacturer will the new engine be from?
#16 by Grumpy grizzly on November 20, 2012 - 12:58 PM

ISO is useless. You are involved in a major MVA incident. You are trapped. But guess what, your town disbanded/elimanted the unit that would get you out. May the pain be with you, courtesy of your local elected politicians.
#17 by Grumpy grizzly on November 20, 2012 - 12:40 PM

I have one question. What town with a tax-payer base will supply your town with a ladder company. This is the same arguement with mutual aid. Town A cuts a company, usually engine. Now you get a fire that depletes your “normal” manning. You are short companies, this is NOT a major incident. Why should the citizens of town B cover you. The rig that they paid for should be in that’s town FD bay. Mutual Aid has been abused to cover houses that they have dis-banded. I grew up in Boston. Mutual aid works, they cover houses/respond upon multiple alarm/ or calls. Illinois, the politicians cover their butt. Mutual aid is NOT a save me from a tax increase. By the way, the house/business is a total loss, well you are not getting any tax revenue. And you went to college?????????????
#18 by Mike on November 20, 2012 - 8:23 AM

This is something that I feel will become more common as time goes on. While it may seem to be a loss, the duplication of resources in some areas is hard to justify. It is obvious that Squads are becoming extinct. Many agencies are selling off their single-role rescue Squads and replacing them with “Rescue Engines”. Again, its hard to justify keeping a piece of apparatus for the sole purpose of carrying equipment used a couple times a year.

Secondly, fewer insurance companies are using ISO Ratings for their premium analysis. Therefore, having specific apparatus such as trucks will not have as significant of an effect.

Again, it is hard to see these rigs go…..but it is even harder to argue the need based on annual use. Just a thought……