The city of Visalia (CA) plans to build a new fire station downtown to replace its oldest—and largest—station, reports thesungazette.com.

In December, council designated 1.46 acres of city-owned land as the future site of Station 51—currently a parking lot directly west of City Hall off Acequia between Conyer and Stevenson streets, the report says.

The current Station 51 opened in 1970 and houses Engine 51 and Truck 51, each staffed by three personnel; Truck 251, a reserve fire truck; as well as Squad 51, its paramedic unit.

The new facility will be primarily paid for through Measure N, the city’s 2016 half-cent sales tax measure. The initial 10-year plan included $4.4 million for the design and construction of a new—or renovation to the existing—Station 51, according to the report.

Officials say bringing the current station up to code would have likely been more expensive than building new digs. The largest challenge, they say, would have been renovations for wheelchair access. City officials estimate the project’s price tag between $6 million and $15 million.

Also in the works for the Visalia Fire Department is Station 56, on which the city spent $294,000 on a Lovers Lane property in May just south of Tulare Avenue, the report says. The city has been purchasing space from Cal Fire at the Lovers Lane Tulare Unit headquarters since 2006.

By Bill Adams

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) NFPA 1901 Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus is being replaced by a new standard – NFPA 1900 Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Vehicles, Automotive Fire Apparatus, Wildland Fire Apparatus, and Automotive Ambulances. My understanding from the NFPA website is that public comment on the new 1900 standard is closed and its technical sub-committees have been adjourned.

My personal interpretation is all that remains is for the 30 +/- members of the NFPA 1900 committee to vote to approve or disapprove each proposal for the final draft. I can’t find if or when the final draft will be available for public viewing or when the committee’s final vote will be held.

In my opinion, NFPA committee members are like Fire Apparatus Manufacturers’ Association (FAMA) members. They are very tight-lipped about the internal happenings within their organizations. That can be frustrating, but to its defense, the NFPA always makes available written substantiation for each decision on every proposed change to a standard. That is admirable, however, good luck finding a specific change in the labyrinth of material they make available to the public!

Worthy of mention is a proposal or proposals for the new standard to eliminate the current lists of ancillary equipment NFPA 1901 requires for each of its seven classifications of fire apparatus. Eliminating the equipment lists may jeopardize the collaboration currently existing between the NFPA and the Insurance Services Office (ISO). The dictionary defines collaboration as teamwork, a relationship, or cooperation.

ISO

From the website, “The Insurance Services Office, or ISO for short, is an insurance advisory organization that provides statistical and actuarial information to businesses.” A common misconception is the ISO is still the original non-profit organization that took the place of the former National Board of Fire Underwriters (NBFU) in “rating” a municipality’s fire protection including its fire departments. The ISO is now a for-hire business that among other services still “rates” municipalities and their fire departments for entities such as insurance companies, brokers, and governmental agencies.

The ISO’s Fire Suppression Rating Schedule (FSRS) is used to evaluate municipalities. The current 2012 issue has its own lists—albeit very abbreviated ones—of ancillary equipment each fire apparatus should carry. [Note: My reference copy is stamped “Filed–Not Approved.” Consequently, there may be some changes in it.]

My copy mentions NFPA 1901’s ancillary equipment lists in several places. As an example, FSRS Section 500 Fire Department, 512 Equipment on Existing Engine Companies states: “Evaluate pumper equipment and hose carried for fighting structure fires by referring to NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus, Pumper Fire Apparatus.” The FSRS equipment list for engine companies is in its Appendix A, Table 512A. The list is not as extensive as NFPA 1901 criteria. Which prevails when the ISO evaluates a fire department?

What happens to the inferred ISO/NFPA 1901 collaboration if the NFPA eliminates its equipment lists? It appears—and I stress appears—the ISO allows its inspectors latitude in evaluating ancillary equipment carried on fire apparatus. However, if the new NFPA 1900 eliminates equipment lists or in an appendix it merely “recommends” what equipment should be carried, who monitors or approves how and what a

Seagrave—Louisville-Jefferson (KY) County Metro Government HydroForce pumper. Marauder stainless steel tilt cab and chassis; Cummins X12 500-hp engine; Waterous CMU two-stage 2,000-gpm pump; stainless steel body; waterway with water flow of 1,500 gpm; UPF Poly 500-gallon water tank; Task Force Tips Typhoon RC Y5-E21A-L45 monitor. Dealer: Dennis Downes, Fire & Specialty Equipment, Shepherdsville, KY.

MORE FIRE APPARATUS ARTICLES>>

The Minden Hills (Ontario, Canada) Fire Department recently took delivery of a new Ford F550, reports mindentimes.ca.

Smaller in size compared to other apparatus, the Pierce-built initial attack apparatus has a 5,000-liter-per-minute pump, 750-liter water tank, 60-liter foam tank, and myriad other customizable features.

Over two years ago council approved the purchase of a new fire apparatus to replace the fleet’s 1995 International. It took 16 months to build, which saw very few non-COVID delays, the report says.

The new unit now gives the department three apparatus with which to respond to calls.