Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse expressed frustration Friday over findings that steps were not taken to fix the building's alarm system after a malfunction was reported Dec. 30.
Watch video
This updates a story posted at 10:33 a.m.
HOLYOKE -- The owner of an apartment block where three people died in a New Year's Day fire has been fined $100 after a code compliance investigation found there had been no annual tests on the building's fire alarm system, state officials said Friday.
That alarm system, investigators found, lost the connection to its monitoring company about 32 hours before the Jan. 1 fire at 106 North East St.
According to the state fire marshal's office, the monitoring company made repeated attempts to contact the local property manager during the time between the malfunction at 11:47 p.m. on Dec. 30, a Friday, and the blaze that broke out shortly before 9 a.m. the following Sunday morning.
As the flames began to spread, alarms sounded within the building. But no signal went out to the monitoring company, which would have been required to summon the Holyoke Fire Department.
"Because the monitoring connection was broken, the fire department was notified of the fire by 911 calls that came after the fire had been burning for some minutes," Fire Marshal Peter J. Ostroskey said in a statement Friday.
Killed in the fire were Maria Cartagena, 48, and Jorge Munoz, 55, both of Holyoke, and Trevor R. Wadleigh, 34, of Easthampton.
"Obviously, we are all incredibly frustrated that the property manager did not respond to alerts from the alarm company about a problem with the system," Mayor Alex B. Morse wrote in an email Friday.
Neither the owner of the building, Brookline resident Irshad Sideeka, or property manager Raquel E. Rodriguez of Springfield responded to requests for comment Friday.
Sideeka, who owns the building and a number of other Holyoke properties through an entity called Naviah Investments, was issued a non-criminal citation for failing to have the building's alarm system inspected annually, as required by law. Jennifer Mieth, spokeswoman for the fire marshal's office, said the offense was the building owner's first.
The fine for a second offense is $500. Third and subsequent offenses trigger fines of $1,000.
Under state regulations dating to 2011, older buildings with six or more units are required to have alarm systems. In the case of 106 North East St., the system was required to be monitored by either a third-party company or the local fire department.
A review of city records by The Republican found the building's alarm system was installed in February 2011, prior to its sale to Sideeka that spring. But Brian O'Connor, the owner of the Holyoke-based alarm company who did the installation, said the building's former management company cut him out of the monitoring and maintenance plan in 2012 as the company consolidated its service contracts.
State officials on Friday did not release the name of the current alarm monitoring company. The company was only required to contact the property manager and not the city's fire department about the problem with the connection, according to the state fire marshal's office.
"We have no information that a test has been conducted after the initial installation inspection," Mieth wrote in an email responding to a questions about the system's test history.
Brian W. O'Connor, owner of Holyoke-based Target Alarm Systems, stands for a portrait on Westfield Road in Holyoke Monday, Jan. 9, 2017. O'Connor installed the alarm system at 106 North East St., where three people died in a New Year's Day fire -- but O'Connor's company has not been responsible for the system's monitoring and maintenance since 2012.Greg Saulmon / The Republican
The repair window
State investigators have not determined the nature of the alarm system malfunction.
O'Connor, who owns Target Alarm Systems, said Friday there are a few different reasons why a connection might stop working -- from nonpayment for the two phone lines the system relies on to communicate with the monitoring company, to other technical glitches.
And, he said, the amount of time it takes to fix a problem can vary.
He offered comments to The Republican to help explain how a malfunction with an alarm system might be handled.
"If the lines are off for nonpayment, I would then inform the owner that they must take care if the bill immediately," O'Connor said. "If that's not done, or if they are unreachable, I then inform the local fire inspector."
At that point, he explained, the building might be evacuated and a "fire watch" would be imposed -- either a firefighter or property manager would keep watch at the building until the system came back online.
A problem with the phone line, he said, would have to be repaired by the phone company -- which could take a day or two. "Again, the fire department should be notified," he said.
A third possibility is a problem with the alarm system's equipment or components -- in which case it can often be fixed on the spot.
Changes proposed
In the weeks since the fire, Morse and Fire Chief John A. Pond have been heavily criticized over the practice -- known as a "brownout" -- of periodically taking one of the city's downtown engines out of service to trim overtime costs and balance the department's budget.
Morse and Pond have maintained that delays in notifying the fire department of the blaze were the main contributors to the tragedy. The out-of-service engine was not a factor in the loss of life, they have said.
Critics say the availability of Engine 2 could only have assisted the rescue efforts, and could have saved lives.
Morse said Friday the code compliance findings show the city's firefighters "did the absolute best they could given the circumstances."
"There are many moving parts, but if the department was notified at the onset of the fire, that would have made a substantial difference," he said.
The rescue efforts of the city's police and firefighters, he said, "displayed heroism at its best."
The City Council's Ordinance Committee, meanwhile, is weighing orders that would strengthen requirements for alarm systems at the city's residential buildings.
On the table, Morse said, are proposals including:
- an order that the city "use any legislative mechanism necessary to require the installation of monitored fire alarm systems in residential buildings with four or more units";
- an order that the council adopt a special act requiring the installation of monitored fire alarm systems in buildings with four or more units;
- and an order for a new ordinance requiring immediate notification of the fire department when a monitoring company for a residential building with four or more units detects a connection problem.
Under the final provision, the property owner would pay for a "fire watch detail" while the system is out of service.
Because some of the proposed regulations are stricter than those imposed by the state, Morse said the city may need to pursue a home-rule petition. Such an effort would require legislative approval and the governor's sign-off.
Morse said he believes the proposed changes would not impact the fire department's budget.
"Under one of the proposed ordinances, the chief would have discretion to assign a fire watch detail, which would likely be an overtime expense, but as stated, the cost of this would be paid for by the property owner," Morse said.
