(VIA EMAIL FORMS OR POSTAL)

Dear SENATORS – Members of the State and Local Govt Committee:

I am writing in reference to HB 114, a superfluous and fatally flawed piece of legislation. It was almost predictable that the mothering instinct would prompt female politicians to address the various active school shooter incidents occurring nationwide through some knee jerk legislative endeavor. What some politicians might perceive as their personal call to action is simply an opportunity for notoriety via extraneous legislative activity. Not all headline news situations can be rectified by new legislation. Moreover, to create additional legislation that countermands, contradicts, usurps or creates exceptions to existing law is often an inappropriate approach to mitigate even such newsworthy situations. More pathetic is a legislative initiative predicated upon a single constituent’s personal agenda that provides inexplicable exemption from nationally accepted engineering standards of practice wherein such exemption may create substantial risk to public safety.

Even individuals outside of the Fire & Building Codes industry should easily grasp the general regulatory scheme that Building Codes “build buildings” and Fire Codes “maintain buildings”. Building Codes prescribe in detail the methods and materials for the construction of buildings and structures so we have a safe built environment. Fire Codes then dictate the manner in which all such buildings are to be maintained and regulate all activities and operations conducted therein. Fire Codes also contain the building code construction requirements for fire safety including both the active and passive fire protection systems. Such fire safety elements would include not only “active” systems such as sprinkler and fire alarm systems but also “passive” requirements that provide for a safe means of egress. Why? Because a protected, unobstructed, viable means of egress is central to the fire service mission of rescue and also provides for firefighter safety. Therefore, this proposed legislation that portends that the Board of Building Standards (BBS) is the more appropriate agency than the Division of State Fire Marshal (SFM)–and Ohio’s fire service– would be to develop these “operational” means of egress Rules is hypocritical. How many building officials regularly crawl into burning structures or otherwise risk their life at emergency scenes? There are many monuments for memorial of line of duty deaths for fallen firefighters. For building officials? Not so much.

Regardless of the outcome of HB 114 in this General Assembly, the mere fact that it passed the house in this horrific form and content MUST be addressed by Ohio’s FIRE SERVICE and supporting parties. Not only is the bill AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE WITH OVERWHELMING MAJORITY blatantly contradictory to the internationally accepted regulatory scheme described above, it also REEKS of the Department of Commerce’s continued penchant to disregard the internationally accepted powers of the Fire Code Official. For many, many years the Director of the Department of Commerce and the department’s administration–(notably the administrations of Nancy Drake, Donna Owens and Kimmie Zurz)–have perpetrated a perverse treatment of the Fire Marshal’s Office as second class to the Board of BS and the State Building Authority.

Fueling the predisposition by the Department of Commerce to empower the Board of BS and immasculate the Div of SFM is the BBS rhetoric that the fire service is comprised of uneducated (fire) hose jockeys that simply ‘put the wet stuff on the red stuff’. Presumably then, hammering nails for many years and becoming a building official makes one academically superior? I would posit that on both sides of the fence there resides a full spectrum of academic achievements. Regardless of academic prowess, the proper execution of a Code Official’s responsibilities is dependent upon the appropriate understanding of the national model codes. Furthermore, Fire Code Officials in Ohio should be cognizant of the various deviations from the international model fire code as set forth in the Ohio Fire Code. These Ohio “adaptations” to the international model fire code were typically a result of political interferences and legislative initiatives via the Revised Code requiring congruent language in the Administrative Code–the Ohio Fire Code. Whereas the Ohio Building Code appears to fubar the international model building code due perhaps simply to the collective “superior intellect” of the Board of Building Standards staff. Consider for example, the infamous yet failed “2 year rule” that BBS and Ohio Building Code officials hid behind for so many years until it was struck down judicially and rescinded. In sum, this infamous “BBS rule” provided that if a situation that was a Violation of the Building Code could exist for 2 years before being discovered…then…well…it was deemed to be…Compliant. BRILLIANT! A statue of limitations for violating a life safety code! To the DETRIMENT of the SAFETY of Ohio’s citizens? How could any Code Official turn away from a non-compliant situation? Perhaps this BBS penchant for avoiding code violations throughout the lifespan of a building punctuates the accepted regulatory schema as heretofore described?

(Has any code official thought to investigate the non-compliant situations that were previously “solved” by the infamous 2 year rule?)

One of the commonly encountered situations that were “solved” by the infamous 2 year rule is the illegal change of use and occupancy of a building. During my tenure as Chief of Enforcement for the State Fire Marshal’s Office, we addressed the plethora of small motels that illegally changed use and occupancy to apartments. We pursued code compliance in concert with local building officials and BBS Senior Staff. Unfortunately, many local building officials had difficulty in determining the elements necessary to constitute a dwelling unit (apartment) and even more difficulty in understanding the differential diagnosis of an illegal change of use and occupancy. The Division of State Fire Marshal license bureau was actually provided with Certificates of Occupancy that had been “CORRECTED” by BBS Senior Staff! The entire situation naturally became increasingly convoluted and unenforceable each time the politicians reconfigured the statute. But can a simple illegal change of use and occupancy actually harm anyone? Let us not forget the Station Nightclub fire in New Jersey that killed or injured several hundred concert patrons. Apparently, this building was previously a restaurant before its illegal change of use and occupancy to a nightclub. Had the building official having jurisdiction simply addressed the change of use and occupancy per the building code, then the nightclub would have been equipped with a sprinkler system. One can only speculate how many lives would have been saved.

I would not recommend that rule making authority and enforcement thereof be placed in the hands of the BBS and building code officials for ANYTHING other than building construction requirements up to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

On point to the proposed legislation is the significant number of major fire incidents where the massive loss of life stemmed from actions that are now considered to be flagrant violations of fire codes. Moreover, the prime example of such violations is the simple locking of required exit doors or a lack of sufficient viable means of egress. These incidents include the Coconut Grove nightclub, the WHO concert, the Triangle Shirtwaist factory, the Beverly Hills Country Club, the Iroquois theatre and Our Lady of the Angels School. Code requirements change subsequent to a “Code Investigation” of such incidents–(not a simple “Arson Investigation” looking for cause and origin.) Does a statistical analysis of previous school incidents yield a reasonable conclusion that significant numbers of deaths have occurred simply because egress doors were not equipped with these proposed locking devices? Similarly, does statistical probability deduce that the availability and application of such locking devices will save a substantial number of lives in future incidents?

During my fire service career I have searched numerous school/university buildings for bombs, forcibly entered and ventilated a school building charged with natural gas, fought fires in various university buildings and investigated numerous arson fires throughout the Ohio State University (OSU) campus. Additionally, I potentially saved lives at Central State University by discovering, identifying and mitigating-(via the Bomb Disposal Unit)-an unstable container of crystallized Picric Acid (explosive) in the chemical storage area. Therefore, through personal experience I have a keen sense of the potential for various emergency situations that may occur in an educational occupancy. During my tenure as Chief of Code Enforcement I worked with the statewide school safety taskforce, discussing the variety of possible scenarios that may occur and the gamut of potential occupant responses whether grade school children or college students. These discussions involved law enforcement, school resource officers and school administrators. It appears a reasonable argument could be made for securing egress doors against ingress. In stark contrast, any action to prohibit or prolong a rapid egress from an emergency must raise a red flag with code officials.

Point being, over my entire career I was never just a paper pushing desk jockey. Perhaps folks outside the fire service do not harbor a factual perception of the amount of smoke even a trash can fire might produce. Perhaps such folks might not realize how fast fire travels or how quickly a smoke layer can descend to floor level in a room or hallway. Once an individual has been in a burning structure one can easily appreciate the destructive power of fire and the rapidity in which smoke develops. Obviously, as a certified professional firefighter with 25 years of service in Ohio’s fire service I certainly have had many opportunities to be at structure fires. Fortunately–when necessary–all the while wearing protective clothing and having the luxury of an air tank strapped to my back. However, to truly comprehend the intensely immediate need to egress from a fire area one needs only to be in a buring structure without the benefit of such protective gear. On numerous occasions I have entered burning structures with nothing more than a flashlight or a small fire extinguisher. The first time was during college as I drove by OSU off-campus housing and discovered a two story apartment building with fire blowing out of the second floor alley side windows. With only the fire extinguisher and flashlight from my vehicle in hand, I kicked in the door and went up to the second floor. There, the smoke blanket was already down to knee level and the heat was building rapidly. With the fire to my left I started crawling in a right hand search pattern. Finding no bodies, I emptied my extinguisher down the now fully involved hallway and turned to make my escape. In that few seconds the smoke layer had dropped all the way to floor level. I quickly crawled through the total blackness in the direction that I had hoped to find the stairwell. I wondered how many more seconds until I would fall unconscious. For one to begin to appreciate the depth of total blackness in a fire, know that I pointed my new, expensive, krypton-bulb-equipped, “Smokecutter” flashlight directly into my eyes and could not see even a glimpse of light. Just crawling in blackness. Then I hit my head. I had found the opposing wall. Now oriented, I soon found the stairwell and tumbled down and out to fresh air. What a rush! Better than many fire training sessions as I now knew how quickly one can die in a fire. After several similar experiences over the years, the very last time I embraced such a situation was nearly 20 years after the first, circa 2005. About 2 am late one summer Saturday night as I sat working on SFM citations I heard the police dispatched to investigate a smell of smoke. The address was just a block away. As I stepped out onto the porch I knew the unmistakable smell of a working house fire. Although hampered by a recently broken back I limped over to the scene as quickly as I could manage. Upon arrival I found only a few bystanders screaming into a smoke filled doorway for the occupant to wake up and get out. Without pause I crawled into the smoke. I crawled past a drum set. Visibility improved as I approached the seat of the fire, the burning bed and surrounding area. I heaved a floor rug up onto the bed to smother the fire a bit. Concurrently, putrid black smoke promptly permeated the space reducing visibility and eliminating the presence of breathable air at floor level. After a quick leg sweep under the bed I headed for the doorway. As I emerged from the smoke I found that a Police Officer was standing by the doorway holding a fire extinguisher. I requested to utilize the extinguisher. Although the cop discouraged me from going back into the smoke, he finally did relinquish the extinguisher. Having found no bodies during the primary search I focused simply on extinguishment. Crawled in, emptied the extinguisher, crawled out. Conditions were deteriorating rapidly, with the smoke layer extending to the floor. Coughing and spitting up black soot I crawled out into the night air. I thought I was done. But, the bystanders continued to be quite vocal and upset. The police officer said they believed “John” was home because his car was parked adjacent and they thought at this time of the morning he could be passed out drunk. Despite the officer’s adamant comments to the contrary, I quickly crawled back into the smoke filled hallway. However, this time, the conditions were simply untenable. There was zero visibility. There was no air to breathe. Just pure blackness. I crawled till I began to choke. Already getting very dizzy and feeling I would soon succumb, I gave up and turned to escape. Finding only total blackness, I was quickly getting disoriented. I paused. How simple to just lay down. But, at the time, I still had the career I loved. I soon heard the cop’s voice and headed toward the sound. As I neared the doorway, a hand came into the darkness and pulled me the last couple of feet. (If identified, I still owe that Officer a steak dinner.) On my hands and knees, expectorating black soot, I see the first due fire engine arrive. Having worked on that fire department for a couple years, I knew these firefighters were highly trained professionals. So I left, wondering if they would puzzle about the area rug on the bed. As I stumbled home still choking on soot, I couldn’t believe that I missed finding John in a space the size of a converted garage–(illegal change of use?)-and again was amazed at how quickly smoke kills. (I later learned that John had gone down the few blocks to the fire department to summon help…) As I limped home I pondered the potential for perishing in a structure of only about 1000 square feet. Naturally, I recall the pinnacle of purely pathetic political posturing: the Scottown, Ohio fireworks facility fire.

I only describe these personal incidents to create an understanding of such an emergency from a victims perspective. Further, in hopes for consideration of the potential for fire or an explosive with resulting fire as a viable component in any of the emergency situations contemplated by this legislation. (Remember the 99 explosive devices used at the Columbine High School Massacre, including pipe bombs, propane tanks, and Molotov cocktails.) Further, for recognition of the awesome power of fire and the real killer, the rapid development of the attendant smoke blanket. Most importantly, a smoke filled hallway would not provide a tenable situation for potential survivors to stand up, discover why the egress doors will not push open or why the crash bar won’t operate. While reviewing this bill, I pictured the old orange T-handle crash bar locks used in school buildings. Instructions were printed on the device for its removal, necessary to subsequently operate the crash bar and exit door. In a dark or smoke filled hallway and/or while escaping an emergency, would a child discover, read and follow such instructions? As new building operational technologies are developed, e.g., SiteGuard Active Shooter Response, they should be evaluated via peer discourse at the national code development committee levels with input and consensus from both fire code officials and building code authorities.

The penultimate point is that previous, perhaps even well-intentioned, modifications to the Ohio Revised Code with regard to fire safety issues have created dubious dichotomies with nationally accepted safety standards. For example, the previously mentioned Scottown, Ohio fireworks facility fire. Although I have successfully blocked from memory the burned and charred corpses found in fatal house fires, I still retain a vivid image of the 9 bodies on the driveway of that fireworks “retail store”. In a building not much over 1,000 sq. ft., about the size of a large two car garage, filled with fireworks for sale, on July 3, 1996, 9 individuals perished and 11 were injured when an individual with a cigarette ignited the fireworks therein. As we stepped around those bodies that day, I believed the incident would be significant with regard to fire code development at the national level. I requested that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) be invited to join the investigation. Alternatively, I suggested that the SFM conduct an NFPA-style Code Investigation rather than simply focusing on the perpetrator that ignited the fire. During subsequent years I spent many hours and much money attending national code development sessions around the nation, endeavoring to bolster safety standards for the “retail sale” of fireworks. Moreover, after appointment to the Governor’s Task Force on Fire Suppression Systems for Fireworks Facilities and elected Co-Chair, I worked diligently to determine how 9 persons could perish in such a small space and how could fire codes prevent future tragedies. By contract with Battelle Institute, the Task Force conducted full scale live fire testing at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland. At Aberdeen, I watched a live fire test of a 1,000 sq. ft. space– “mock retail fireworks store” — filled with shelves of various fireworks burn so violently that we almost lost the test building, even with a sprinkler system operating! (Fireworks are oxidizers and difficult to extinguish.) Moreover, we videotaped the incredulous rapidity of smoke generation. AS IF THE VIOLENT IGNITION AND BURNING OF THE FIREWORKS PRODUCTS WERE NOT DISORIENTING AND DANGEROUS ENOUGH, THE ENTIRE 1,000 SQ. FT. SPACE WAS FILLED WITH TOXIC BLACK SMOKE IN UNDER TEN SECONDS! SO, how did 9 individuals die at Scottown, in an approximately 1,000 sq. ft. structure filled with inherently dangerous fireworks? We had just videotaped a live fire test of a similar size space where the burning fireworks PRODUCED A SMOKE BLANKET TO THE FLOOR IN UNDER 10 SECONDS! Did the Department of Commerce release the video to the media? Did Commerce alert the public to the life threatening possibilities they are exposed to as they purchase their “illegal” fireworks? Did Commerce pursue a change to the Revised Code to outlaw these dangerous “retail” fireworks stores? Or did Commerce continue to pamper the fireworks industry? In other states, fireworks are sold from tents or trailers where only the staff is intimate with the fireworks product. While the International Fire Code simply prohibited the buying public from being in any kind of shopping cart grocery store of fireworks, the Revised Code continued to protect their existence and protect the cherished few allowed to own them through a moratorium on new seller licenses, some kind of perverse state supported monopoly.

Beyond fireworks, I found YMCA facilities to be licensed as hotels, yet not operating per hotel licensing law. The Revised Code suddenly contained the creation of a new type of hotel license that created more problems and issues. I found a Columbus area real estate developer that built several new apartment complexes in areas that apparently created a zoning issue, so he applied to license his apartment buildings as a hotel. For very valid fire and life safety reasons the law prohibited a hotel and apartments from co-existing in the same structure. So rather than resolving zoning issues, once again Commerce and the legislature coddle the regulated industry and further contaminate and confuse the regulatory framework via nonsensical changes to the Revised Code.

Perhaps not as egregious as the fireworks fiasco, but certainly so flagrantly contradictory to nationally accepted standards of engineering practice and fire safety, the Revised Code language in regard to bulk fuel tank dispensing must be highlighted herein. During my travels around the state of Ohio, I regularly discovered illegal petroleum (gas, diesel, kerosene) fuel dispensing sites where fuels were being dispensed to the public from aboveground fuel storage tanks or where fuels were dispensed to private parties on sites openly accessible to the public. These situations were so numerous its as if the petroleum industry contractors were blatantly disregarding Ohio’s prohibition to such aboveground storage tank dispensing due to previous years utter lack of code enforcement. Most disturbing was the discovery that fuel dispensers were actually directly connected to the huge bulk storage fuel tanks–holding tens of thousands of gallons of fuel–located at various bulk storage tank farms around the state. With due diligence, I queried various code officials, consultants, and industry experts at the national level, seeking a “safe” methodology for such a grossly dangerous installation. Everyone’s answer was the same, such a design and installation was ludicrous, inherently dangerous and the antithesis of nationally accepted engineering practices. However, the Department of Commerce was always dominated by the petroleum industry, specifically the Ohio Petroleum Marketers Association (OPMA). When OPMA said, “Bend”. pathetically, Commerce administration grabbed their ankles. I was forced to “negotiate” requested fire code changes with OPMA with their slick “Consultant”, a self anointed technical “expert”. Again the SFM received second class treatment from Commerce as the Division of Industrial Compliance (DIC) building official was appointed to “mediate” the meetings with OPMA’s “expert”. Meeting after meeting I fought to protect the integrity of the model fire code while the slick “expert” espoused his nebulous rhetoric. Simply put, the OPMA “consultant” was just OPMA’s Mouthpiece who liked to hear himself talk, so I endured one 4 hour meeting answering every question…with a question. However, even the OPMA Mouthpiece could not produce credible evidence of sound engineering practice to explain the fuel dispensers connected directly to bulk storage tanks at bulk plant fuel storage farms. Never was even one set of design plans or construction documents stamped by an engineer produced to support such agro-engineering. Now comes the omnipotent politicians and the Revised Code is modified to allow such inherently dangerous installations. Forced to change the Ohio Fire Code to mirror the BRILLIANT language of the Revised Code, I can only cogitate on potential disasters, acts of terrorism, etc.

The draconian treatment of the SFM, the Ohio Fire Code, and fire code enforcement is further embodied by the Revised Code 3737.43 requiring that fire code citations be appealed to the State Board of Building Appeals (BBA). Unbelievable. Suddenly, every SFM citation became a fight not only against the respondent, but also, against the BBA hearing the case. Members of the BBA failed to comprehend the SFM and Fire Department citation process as opposed to their normal course of business granting relief by Variances to the Building Code. Pathetically, one or more members had outright distain for the fire service and the new burden of hearing fire code issues. Yes, the omnipotent politicians struck again. A sublime example is the Aboveground Storage Fuel Tank and fuel dispensing located on the ramp to the Statehouse underground parking garage. Both the SFM and Columbus Fire Department officials opposed this illegal installation. Again, I can only contemplate the potential for accidental disasters or acts of terrorism, etc.

I was directly responsible for the promulgation of the administrative rules that comprise the Ohio Fire Code. The State Fire Marshal charged me with evaluating the national model fire codes available for adoption by the SFM and recommending the one to utilize. It was a difficult choice to make. I had spent so much of my vacation time and own money to attend the code development hearings for the International Fire Code held around the nation. I had written numerous code changes, testified at hearing on a plethora of proposed changed and voted on nearly all of the fire code change proposals up for vote throughout the hearings. I was thoroughly familiar with the International Fire Code and the International Code Set including the International Building Code due to the overlapping requirements. I also sat on the International Property Maintenance Performance Code Development Committee. Similarly, I was familiar with the alternative option, the model fire code produced by the National Fire Protection Association, having been 1 of 12 Code Officials nationwide selected to sit on the NFPA 1 – Uniform Fire Code development committee. I recommended the International Fire Code as published by the International Code Council (ICC). Concurrently, the Board of BS also adopted the International Model Building Codes. After fighting BBS and Commerce for months and months the SFM retained a mere modicum of the construction approval authority that the ICC would otherwise provide to the Fire Code Official. Unbelievably, the Backstabbing BBS actually attempted to adopt administrative rules that would totally eliminate any fire service authority or involvement in the building construction process in the state of Ohio. But, I discovered the proposed rules just in time. We alerted various fire prevention officers around the state. Ohio’s Fire Code Officials quickly organized in opposition to this underhanded endeavor. The administrative hearing on the proposed backstabbing rules was replete with fire service personnel providing substantial testimony to thwart this dirty, underhanded, backstabbing attempt by BBS staff to restrict and reduce the existing authority of fire code officials. If you wondered which side Commerce supported…simply refer to the “compromise” language the SFM was forced to accept in regard to the construction approval process. I will not forget being in the Marshal’s car when the Assistant Director of Commerce called him and threatened to fire him if he continued to fight for fire service authority. Not only has Commerce heralded BBS and DIC as the golden hair children, but the red headed stepchild-SFM- was further interfered with during the adoption of the International Fire Code (IFC) as the basis of the Ohio Fire Code. Despite a huge request from Ohio’s fire service, Commerce forbade the SFM from adopting the IFC model code provisions regulating Oil and Gas sites. In a meeting with the Oil and Gas Industry and the Division of Oil and Gas Chief, we brought forward the huge outcry from Ohio’s fire service to include these rules in the state Fire Code. How many more kids smoking at one of these sites need to die in an explosion? Neither the industry or the ODNR Division Chief wanted to hear that there was a threat of actual enforcement to render these sites safe. Commerce said the rules would again be left out of the Ohio Fire Code, and I still find the unsafe sites littering Ohio’s landscape.

The prevailing theme with Commerce and the SFM and the Ohio Fire Code is simply DO NOT ENFORCE THE LAW as it upsets our “regulated” industries–(I read this as…it upsets all the folks that contribute SO MUCH MONEY TO OUR POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS…). Just one of several similar situations of Commerce interference with Enforcing the state Fire Code is another petroleum issue. As I diligently endeavored to rectify the various sites with illegal dispensing from Aboveground Storage Tanks around the state, I discovered similar illegal dispensing at various Automobile Racetracks. As soon as Enforcement began, the industry complained. Commerce stepped in and provided them…YEARS to bring the sites into compliance. (I doubt the political hacks in my chair have followed up…).

When I was forced to take a disability retirement, subsequent to the broken back and first back surgery, I was actually informed that Commerce wanted me replaced with a political Hack that would NOT Enforce the code. Apparently, because I had the audacity, the INTEGRITY and the Fortitude to actually ENFORCE the law, Commerce was tired of upsetting its “regulated” industries. Similar to my predecessors in the Bureau Chief position, Commerce wanted a new political hack to just sit in the chair but to do no actual enforcement of the Fire Code and related laws. Pathetic.

Most poignantly, the last point is that the Division of State Fire Marshal should be transferred to the Department of Public Safety (DPS). I would posit that the atrocities perpetrated by Commerce administration heretofore described-(and described in OhioFireMarshal.com)-would not have occurred in a Department that actually Enforces the law. There was a previous initiative to move the Marshal’s office to DPS which was supported by Ohio’s Fire Service. This is a legislative initiative that should be resurrected and pursued with fervor.

In conclusion, HB114 is superfluous legislation as the appropriate venue for such rule development exists within the framework of the International Code Council. This piece of legislation is fatally flawed in its misplaced “superiority” of the Board of BS and the inappropriateness of the BBS being selected in lieu of the SFM as the primary rule making authority. Moreover, not only is it ludicrous to tolerate continued political interference on life safety issues, it is simple hypocrisy to arbitrarily dictate the superiority of rules relative to fire and life safety to the BBS rather than the SFM.

Knowing that the political machine grinds on, there are numerous potential legislative initiatives that possess merit, value and provide safety to Ohio’s citizens. For example, repeal the language permitting fuel dispensers to be connected to bulk storage tanks of petroleum products. Relocate the SFM to DPS. Create an appropriate venue for appeal of a Fire Department or SFM citation. Legalize fireworks, pot and prostitution. Address public officials (both elected and appointed) that willfully abuse the authority of their office to further a personal agenda or satisfy a “regulated” industry.

Sincerely,

Michael G. Kraft

MICHAEL G. KRAFT, MIFireE

FIRE CODE CONSULTANT

EXPERT WITNESS

FIRE CODE INVESTIGATOR
Former Assistant State Fire Marshal
Chief of Enforcement
Bureau Chief – Code Enforcement Bureau
Ohio Division of State Fire Marshal

PS While politicians, political hacks, building authorities and industry representatives choke down their perfectly prepared pigs and imbibe cocktails, the real heroes are still on duty, staffing fire stations across the state.

MAY GOD KEEP THEM ALL SAFE.

cc
Fire service Organizations

Media

(Fire Officials – please share with all members of:
Ohio Fire Officials Association

Southwest Fire Safety Council

Northeast Fire Prevention Association
Central Ohio Fire Prevention Association

Ohio Fire Chiefs Association)