HARRY R. CARTER, Ph.D., MIFireE

As I stated a few weeks ago it is sometimes difficult to come up with a topic for my weekly column. However, at other times, the ideas flow like water at Niagara Falls. Over the past two days, I have received e-mails that have set the wheels of my brain a rolling.

On Friday, Chief Jim Gignac of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin sent me an e-mail that he received on a mailing from Retired Fire Chief Charles Rule. This message spoke of a sellout by the North Las Vegas City Council.

Back in 1998 the city council realized that their fire department needed help protecting the community. At the urging of the fire department, they created an ordinance mandating developers install residential fire sprinklers in all new homes. This was widely derided by the developers who stated that it was a crippling requirement.

An excellent example of why this ordinance was needed can be found in the northwestern section of North Las Vegas. One station covers all of the population in that area, and population estimates project that more than half of the city’s population of 117,000 live in that area.

Recently a private development firm announced plans to create a development in that area which could add up to 900 homes to the area. And the poor, poor developer said that adding the sprinklers, at a cost of $1,500 to $2,000 would be an unfair burden. Oh you poor babies. Didn’t anyone tell you that you could charge more for something that costs more?

Fire department officials indicated that the proposed development is more than eight minutes away from their station. Folks, this is a critical statement. In the National Fire Protection Association’s Fire Protection Handbook, 18th edition, published in 1997 there is a critical statement. It states on page 10-31 that, "…crews at fire stations should be able to have an initial attack team comprising an entire first alarm response on the scene within eight minutes of the receipt of the alarm. This equates to about 6 minutes of running time."

Stay with me gang. If the fire department says it is more than eight minutes away, from the development, then it cannot properly protect those homes. By making that statement, they put their city on notice that there was a limit to their ability. And it was just this limit of capability issue that the original solution of sprinklers was designed to address.

Unfortunately for the citizens who will buy the new homes, the ordinance contained a loophole through which one could drive a truck, a fire truck that is. The ordinance contained a codicil that allowed developers to propose an alternative to the protection afforded by the ordinance. And propose an alternative is just what they did. Rather than spend the estimated 1.35 million dollars for sprinklers (that they could have recovered from the buyers) they offered to buy the city a fire truck. Wow, what a great thing!

When I received the first e-mail on this issue I thought to myself, the city council in North Las Vegas will never go for that. Buying a fire truck does not address the root cause of no fire station in the area. You could buy ten fire trucks and they would all still be too far away. Who could be so blind as to fall for the ploy offered by the developers.

Well folks, I guess I was wrong again, because the city council gave away the store. It seems that they voted to issue a waiver to the ordinance in return for "… a $175,000 rescue vehicle for the city’s fire department." What a sell out. As my friend Jim Gignac from Wisconsin said to me in the original e-mail, "I would have held out for a fire station, all wages and fringe benefits for 9 firefighters & 3 officers, and a new truck every 15 years for the life of the subdivision…"

According to the July 7, 2000 Las Vegas Review-Journal article I reviewed, "… With the city facing a lack of funding for emergency services in the far northwest part of the city, the council believes the purchase will help protect citizens more adequately, while saving the builder ... about $600,000 in unexpected building costs." Unexpected my Aunt Tillie! They were thinking about beating the law at every turn in the road.

My question to the North Las Vegas City Council is quite simple. If you were really and truly concerned about safety, why did you not ask for $500,000 towards the building of a new station in the affected area? The fire department indicated that they were planning stations for the area, why did you not ask the developer to build a new station as a quid pro quo for skipping the sprinklers?

Or more importantly, why did you not have the guts to stay the course and enforce the existing ordinance.

I bet you folks would have been the kind who would have rowed out into Boston Harbor in small boats to catch the bags of tea that the Sons of Liberty threw off of the British cargo ship, to help your friends, the British. If our forefathers had your backbone, we would all be speaking with a British lilt to our voices.

I would ask how much campaign money came from the developers in North Las Vegas? Heaven help all us when it comes to politicians who can see no further than the next election. I grew madder and madder as I read the two articles on this municipal sellout.

And as an interesting side bar to this story, it seems that the North Las Vegas Mayor had his fire department over to his house for a pre-4th of July party. It seems that downed power lines had started a fire in his back yard that caused an estimated $20,000 damage to landscaping. So Mr. Mayor, does fire always happen to the other guy? The fire department spent more than two hours being sure that his honor’s property was safe from further harm. Go figure, huh.

Just as I am floating back down to earth from an orbit around Planet Anger, I get an e-mail link to the Rutland Herald. It seems that a new fire chief for Rutland, Vermont was appointed recently to replace Fire Chief Craig Shelley, after Shelley refused to knuckle under to the political pressure from city hall to cut staffing.

Some of the quotations contained within the well-crafted article, written by Damian Pagano of the Rutland Herald, were quite interesting, and disquieting. Chief Shelley was accused of coming to Rutland with a big city mentality and big city expectations. Well wake-up and smell the coffee Rutland, Chief Shelley came from the New York City Fire Department. The last time I looked, New York was a big city. If you folks did not want a big city mentality, you should not have hired an FDNY graduate.

Chief Shelley was hired to bring about change to the Rutland Fire Department. In a letter Chief Shelley wrote to John W. Van Hoesen, Managing Editor of the Rutland Herald, he said, "…I must say that what I brought to the Rutland Fire Department was not a big city mentality and expectations, but nationally recognized standards and practices designed to prevent firefighter and civilian deaths and injuries. I was against a reduction in staffing during my tenure, and I am against any reductions in staffing during my retirement."

Coming in from the outside, Chief Shelley worked hard to standardize procedures, and generally modernize a fire department that needed a change of direction. I guess the people who brought him to Rutland forgot why they hired him in the first place.

However, the quote of the month came from the new Fire Chief himself. It spoke volumes about his wisdom and his view for the future. He was quoted in the news paper as saying that, "… I would love to see more men on duty, but we have to work with what we have," he said. "We're not a big city fire department with a lot of resources. We just have to go back to fighting fires like we used to."

And just how was that chief? From the outside I hope, because in the wake of a 20 percent staffing cut, that’s about all you can safely do. Sources who wish to remain nameless say that morale has plummeted in the wake of the retirements that left the city covered by firefighting shifts that have dropped to six fire personnel. Folks, that is less than half of the force recommended by the same National Fire Protection Association publication listed above.

According to the Herald article, "…The International Association of Firefighters sent a warning letter to Mayor John Cassarino and the Board of Aldermen and threatened legal action if any city firefighters were hurt on the job. Several commentaries have been written by city fire union leaders decrying the decision not to replace the five retirees. And on July 3 about 15 firefighters picketed City Hall to protest the cuts."

Please note that I am not using the new chief’s name. His supporters consider him to be a kind and considerate man. Unfortunately I consider him to be a throwback to the years when two guys and a fire truck were considered good fire protection. Wake up and smell the coffee Rutland, Vermont! You DO NOT have adequate fire protection.

Think about this folks! One town has an ordinance to protect its people in the absence of adequate fire services. And they are bought off by a fire truck. And another town has inadequate fire protection, and the leader of their fire department is marching them backwards into history. Where are we headed folks? I am deeply troubled and concerned by the unfathomable and abiding lack of governmental concern shown toward the fire service in America. And I intend to keep telling it as I see it.

The commentary in this column does not necessarily reflect those of Firehouse.Com, Firehouse Magazine, their employees or parent company Cygnus Business Media. Harry R. Carter, Ph.D., MIFireE, is an internationally known municipal fire protection consultant and contributing editor to Firehouse Magazine. He recently retired as a Battalion Commander with the Newark, New Jersey Fire Department. His commentary appears regularly on Firehouse.Com. For more commentary and information, visit Carter's web site at www.harrycarter.com Harry has published several books available for online ordering, including Firefighting Strategy and Tactics and Management in the Fire Service