PRESS RELEASE SCHENECTADY COUNTY APRIL 2, 2018 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE The fire at 104 Jay Street in the City of Schenectady on March 6, 2015, that took the lives of four people and seriously injured three others, was the subject of an extensive investigation by a Grand Jury in Schenectady County that met on 25 separate occasions and heard from over 60 witnesses. On March 2, 2017, indictments returned by that Grand Jury were unsealed in Schenectady County Court. They charged Jason Sacks, the building manager responsible for the maintenance of 104 Jay Street, and Kenneth Tyree, a housing inspector for the City of Schenectady who inspected the premises at 104 Jay Street the day before the fire, with a number of crimes and offenses including homicide counts for causing the deaths of the four tenants who perished in the fire. On January 12, 2018, Mr. Sacks pled guilty to four counts of criminally negligent homicide and is scheduled to be sentenced on April 6, 2018. On March 6, 2013, Mr. Tyree was acquitted by a jury of the homicide charges but was convicted of a felony charge for Offering a False Instrument for Filing for falsely claiming on his application for employment with the City of Schenectady that he had no criminal convictions. He is scheduled to be sentenced on May 8, 2018. The Grand Jury continued its investigation into this fire and filed a report on May 17, 2017, pursuant to its authority under Section of the Criminal Procedure Law recommending ?legislative, executive or administrative action in the public interest based on stated findings." That report was sealed by Schenectady County Court Judge Matthew Sypniewski while the criminal charges against Jason Sacks and Kenneth Tyree were pending. Now that these prosecutions are concluded, Judge Sypniewski issued an order on March 29, 2018, unsealing that report. In making that order Judge Sypniewski found that the report is based upon facts revealed in the course of an investigation and is supported by a preponderance of the credible and legally admissible evidence. CPL Section That report has been sent to the Mayor of the City of Schenectady and to the Schenectady City Council President. A copy is attached to this press release. The Grand Jury concluded that numerous failures of the Schenectady City Bureau of Code Enforcement directly contributed to the deaths and injuries which occurred at 104 Jay Street on March 6, 2015. Among the findings that supported that conclusion were the following: 1. The Schenectady Fire Department issued a total of 14 Code violation Reports (hereafter referred to as regarding 104 Jay Street to the Bureau of Code Enforcement (hereafter referred to as in the two years preceding the fire. The CVRs involve observed violations of the New York State Fire Code, the New York Building Code and the New York Property maintenance code, together called the Uniform Code. Among the violations noted (some on multiple occasions) were: the absence of fire doors at stairwells, inoperable smoke alarms, the alarm panel box being left open and unsecured, tenants acting to silence the alarm, and the absence of a Knox Box on the building exterior that would contain a key accessible only to building management and the fire department to enter the premises. One CVR sent by a Fire Lieutenant on March 1, 2014, stated ?Building poses numerous hazards that can/will be fatal to its occupants and EMS agencies." 2. BCE employees acknowledged receipt of these CVRs, but treated them as advisory in nature. They were handed off to individual inspectors. They were not logged in or filed. There was no method for keeping any records, either electronically or in hard copy, of when and for what properties the reports were received, to whom they were assigned, the date of any inspections, or the results thereof. Supervisors had no idea whether any inspections resulted from these reports. 3. No reported actions were taken by BCE employees in response to any of the 14 CVRs filed with them in the two years prior to the fire. 4. Firefighters testified that the absence of any remedial action for the conditions they complained about discouraged them from continuing to file CVRs in relation to 104 Jay Street. 5. Despite the dozens and dozens of false alarms at 104 Jay Street, the City did nothing to enforce the City Code provision that permits administrative fees to be assessed against an owner of a property reporting persistent false alarms. The multiplicity of these false alarms contributed to tenant indifference to danger and directly led to tenants accessing the alarm panel box and silencing the alarm without knowledge of how to reset the system. ATF engineers were able to determine that as of the date of the fire the fire alarm system had been silenced and was inoperable on every residential floor at 104 Jay Street. At least one tenant delayed his escape from the building to pull a fire alarm in the hallway that did nothing. 6. In October 2014, the security company that had been monitoring the fire alarm system at 104 Jay Street was informed that the dedicated phone line was no longer in service and subsequently that building management was terminating their service. They sent a fax to the BCE. The Grand Jury heard evidence that the fax was received but there was no evidence that it was ever seen or reviewed by the appropriate BCE officials, no BCE employee acknowledged its receipt, nor was anything placed in the file for 104 Jay Street referencing the communication. T. The City Code requires a complete building inspection prior to issuance of rental certificates every time a building changes hands. Although 104 Jay Street was purchased on October 22, 2014. it was not inspected until the morning before the fire on March 5. 2015. 8. The City Code of Ordinances provides for a ?Fire Inspector? to be appointed by the City to conduct inspections under the Fire Prevention Code mandating the correction of violations and conditions liable to cause fire or endanger lives from fire. That position has not been filled for years prior to the fire. The Grand Jury made 8 specific recommendations for legislative and administrative action by the City of Schenectady as follows: 1. The BCE should adopt a policy manual that includes a delineation of supervisory responsibilities, use of GPS monitors in cars used by BCE employees. incorporates performance standards and reviews and mandates filing, action, and accountability for CVRs received from the Fire Department. The Grand Jury further recommends that the City Council pass legislation to create penalties for building owners who fail to file annual inspections of fire alarm systems. Ethics rules should be tightened regarding inspections including a prohibition of gifts to employees of the building department. 2. The ECE should undertake immediate inspections of all multiple residences in the City. 3. Adopt a policy requiring secure, operable key boxes be installed and maintained on all multiple residences. 4. Increase administrative fees for persistent false claims and require the fire department to notify both the codes department and the Corporation Counsel?s office of false alarms, to permit enforcement of this ordinance. 5. Adopt an ordinance requiring the City Assessor to notify the BCE of the change in ownership of any multiple residence. 6. Perform background checks on all prospective employees of the BCE. T. Adopt an ordinance requiring third?party alarm monitOring companies to notify the BCE and Fire Inspector when services are cancelled or terminated. 8. Fill the vacant position of fire inspector. District Attorney Robert M. Carney stated, ?With the release of this report by the Special Grand Jury empaneled in October of 2016, my office has now completed its work in investigating the circumstances of the accidental fire that took the lives of four people on March a, 2015. The Grand Jury indicted two individuals both of whose cases have been adjudicated. But beyond that, they have made recommendations to the city of Schenectady that it acted upon will make it less likely that such a preventable tragedy ever occur again. This report was filed on May 3, 2017, and sealed until now, so it represents the state of things at that time. I am encouraged that some of these recommendations have been or are being put into effect (particularly recommendations 2 and 6), and that other changes have been made (such as oversight of the act by the Public Safety Commissioner and an Assistant Police Chief but this investigation has revealed that more needs to be donel I am hopeful that the Grand Jury's hard work in this matter will result in much needed improvement in the operation of the Bureau of Code Enforcement and that the expertise of the Schenectady Fire Department is regarded with the gravity it requires. The importance of the Bureau of Code Enforcement in keeping people safe is revealed by the tragic consequences of March 6, 2015 and its bureaucratic failures documented in this report must be fully remedied moving forward." For further information contact District Attorney Robert M. THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SCI-IENECTADY REPORT OF THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY COURT OF THE COUNTY OF SCHENECTADY, STATE OF NEW YORK, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, ISSUED PURSUANT TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW SECTION a- . PIP-11.: All? I 1 p. {hon?tn. . Ik??u- a . m. I i After receiving instructions from the District Attorney of the County of Schenectady, and upon due deliberation and consideration of the evidence before it, the Grand Jury hereby submits the following report pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law, Section ?proposing recommendations for legislative, executive or administrative action in the public interest based upon the stated findings?. FINDINGS THE BUILDING AT 104 JAY STREET On March 6, 2015, a fire accidentally started in a tenant?s apartment at 104 Jay Street, a five story multiple residence in the city and county of Schenectady. That fire caused extensive damage to the building leading to its eventual demolitiOn, and resulted in the deaths of four (4) tenants and severe injuries to several others. At the time of the fire, the five story building at 104 Jay Street contained a basement, a first floor with two empty commercial spaces, and four higher, residential floors, each with ?ve apartments. The building had an older elevator and although it had interior stairs, to access a higher floor required walking down the common hallway of each floor to reach the staircase for the next story, and then repeating the process for each ascending ?oor. There were no doors between the hallways and stairwells at the time of the fire. The city of Schenectadyis Bureau of Code Enforcement (also referred to herein as the ?Codes Department?) maintained paper ?les for every property in the city. The Codes Department ?le for 104 Jay Street showed that ?re protection was the subject of action by the City of Schenectady as far back as 1958, when a variance was granted for the existing wooden doors on the interior stairways to permit their continued use as fire doors, upon the condition that they be coated with fire-retardant paint. In 2010, as a result of an Order to Vacate iSSued by the Codes Department, the then owner of 104 Jay Street purchased and had installed a ?re alarm system in the building to augment the existing exterior, metal fire escape stairway. That alarm system consisted of a locked ?re alarm noti?cation panel near the main entrance in the ?rst ?oor foyer, two pull alarm actuators on each floor, one at each end of the common hallways, and smoke detectors in each apartment, all hardwired to the ?re alarm panel. The system also included two phone lines: one dedicated to monitoring the fire alarm system and intended to notify an alarm monitoring company in the event of ?re or other trouble with the system, which would then notify the Schenectady Fire Department and the building manager, and the other a redundant line. Each ?oor of the building was also provided with a very loud alarm and strobe lighting that went off upon any actuating event. The Schenectady Fire Department (also referred to herein as the ?Fire Department") sends a Code Violation Report to the Codes Department when it ?nds violations of the state the code upon entry into buildings in Schenectady. The CVRs report observed violations of the New York State Fire Code, the New York State Building Code and the New York Property Maintenance Code, together called the Uniform Code. A variety of violations at 104 Jay Street were cited by the Fire Department, some of them several times, and most of them dealing with life-safety issues. On September 26, 2012, the ?re department reported no ?re doors at any stairwells as required by the New York Fire Code. On November 14, 2013, a Code Violation Report from the Schenectady Fire Department cited inoperable smoke alarms, which resulted in the Codes Department issuing an ?enforcement notice letter? and an Order to Vacate, as mandated by the New York Fire Code. Pursuant to that Order to Vacate, the Codes Department required that a Fire Watch be instituted, which under the New York State Fire Code permitted continued occupancy by the tenants, but required certified hourly inspections of the building by the building manager or his representative until the alarm system was back online. In 2013 and 2014, the two years before the ?re, the Fire Department issued a total of 14 Code Violation Reports as to 104 Jay Street. It reported that on numerous occasions when the Fire Department reaponded to the building, the alarm panel box was unlocked and the alarm had been silenced by the tenants. Several Code Violation Reports also noted the absence of a Knox box (a secure box for which only the ?re department and the owner or his agent have a key, typically located on the outside of a building and which contains a master key to open the secured main door of a multiple residence and any secured interior doors), and the fact that the alarm panel box itself was unsecured. On March 1, 2014, almost exactly a year before the tragic fire at 104 Jay Street, a Fire Department Code Violation Report stated in part: ?Building poses numerous hazards that canfwill be fatal to its occupants and EMS agencies?. Again in October of 2014, less than five months before the ?re, the Schenectady Fire Department noti?ed the Codes Department: In general, this building is in very poor condition from basement to roof?. Codes Department employees acknowledged to the Grand Jury the receipt of those Code Violation Reports. The Grand Jury?s investigation showed that there was no system in place whereby the Fire Department?s Code Violation Reports were logged in, filed or memorialized in any way, and that there was no method for keeping any records, either electronically or in hard copy form, of when and for what properties the reports were received, to whom they were assigned, the date of any inspections, or the reSults thereof. The Reports were treated by the Codes Department as advisory in nature, and although assigned to Code Enforcement Of?cers or Housing Inspectors, no one ever logged the violations or followed up on any resulting inspections, and supervisors did not know if inspections were ever actually performed. The Grand Jury learned that the Code Violation Reports emailed to the Codes Department by the Schenectady Fire Department were often ignored by employees after being assigned. There was testimony before the Grand Jury by a Codes Department supervisor that 104 Jay Street, deepite all the Code Violation Reports ?led by the Schenectady Fire Department, ?From a codes standpoint . . . didn?t have a high profile?, that the interactions with inspectors was[sic] on a routine basis?, and that it did not have a ?gross amount of activity?. The evidence showed that no reported action was taken by the Codes Department in response to the 14 CVRs ?led by the Fire Department for 104 Jay Street in the two years before the ?re. Fire?ghters also testi?ed that they often did not ?le Code Violation Reports for 104 Jay Street because they had already been ?led so many times before without any remedial action being taken. In addition to the nonfeasanee of the Codes Department with respect to the numerous Code Violation Reports received from the Fire Department, there were several other factors which contributed, directly or indirectly, to the dangerous, entrapping conditions at 104 Jay Street on March 6, 2015. In the years immediately prior to the ?re, the building had also had persistent false alarms, resolting in numerous responses by the Schenectady Fire Department, and noti?cation of the building?s manager. Fire?ghters reported going to 104 Jay Street ?dozens of times? in the years immediately before the ?re and tenants testi?ed that false alarms happened three to four times a month. One ?re?ghter estimated he had been to the building at least 50 to 60 times fer alarms. On none of the dozens of occasions that the Fire Department responded to l04 Jay Street in the two years before March 5, 2015 was there actually a fire. The Schenectady City Code, (the ?City Code?) Section 124?22 provides that the owner of a building with persistent false alarms can be charged an ?administrative fee? in inereasing amounts until the fourth such alarm and all subsequent alarms carry fees of one hundred and twenty-five dollars DeSpite the history of persistent nuisance alarms at 104 Jay Street in the years before the ?re, no such administrative fees were ever imposed. As a result of those continuous false alarms, which required a building representative?s appearance at the building, tenants were shown by building employees how to silence and reset the alarms. In order to do that, the door to the alarm panel was left unlocked, and the lock mechanism was actually physically damaged so as to render the door to the panel unlockable. The Grand Jury learned that the ?re alarm panel at 104 Jay Street contained buttons behind that unlocked front alarm panel door, clearly marked, that separately permitted the silencing and then resetting of the alarms. The evidence showed however that, although tenants silenced the alarm, they did not reset it, because to do so would just immediately put it back into alarm, unless the triggering cause was located and eliminated. Because each floor had its own individual dedicated wiring circuit that carried signals to the alarm panel, if an alarm on any floor was silenced, none of the smoke detectors On that floor would function until the alarm was reset at the panel. The panel was destroyed by vandalism in February of 2014. It was replaced and a Certification of Inspection issued on February 26, 2014, which was the last inspection conducted of the fire alarm system before the ?re. The multitude of responses to 104 Jay Street by the Fire Department showed that the alarms were being continually reset during 2014. However, beginning in November of 2014, the number of ?re related calls to the Fire Department from 104 Jay Street dramatically decreased. Prior to the fire on March 6, 2015, the last fire related call to 104 Jay Street occurred on January 30, 2015, which was the last time the alarm system was reset by the Fire Department and restored to a functional status. After January 30, 2015, the evidence before the Grand Jury showed that the alarm panel had been silenced and not reset to the extent that, at the time of the fire, all of the residential floor alarm circuits were out of service. A tenant of the ?oor where the fire originated testi?ed that he pulled a fire alarm in the hallway shortly after the fire started and nothing happened. In October of 2014, the security company which had the menitoring contract for 104 Jay Street, whereby the fire department was infermed of ?re alarms at the building, received notification that the dedicated phone line at 104 Jay Street was no longer in service. It was terminated by the building?s management. The security company then sent a fax to the Codes Department, notifying it of the consequent lack of monitoring. Although the Grand Jury received proof that that fax was received by the Codes Department, there was no evidence that it was ever seen or reviewed by the appropriate Codes of?cials, and no Codes Department employee admitted knowledge of its receipt, nor was anything placed in the file for 104 Jay Street referencing that communication. Notice to the Codes Department from the alarm company was not then required, but the evidence was clear that, although received, either through neglect or active malfeasance, no steps were ever taken to rectify the dangerous, illegal condition that resulted at 104 Jay Street. The Bureau of Code Enforcement The Schenectady City Code requires a new building owner to register, or have his building manager register, with the Codes Department, providing contact information and the name and address of the person responsible for the building. City Code also requires that a Certi?cate of Occupancy be obtained before any apartment is rented. In addition, upon a new owner taking possession, the City Code requires that a c0mplete building inspection be done before any apartments are rented. However, there is currently no mechanism in place whereby the Codes Department is noti?ed upon the sale of a multiple residence in Schenectady. The building at 104 Jay Street was sold on October 22, 2014, but a complete building inepection was not conducted of 104 Jay Street by the Codes Department until March 5, 2015. The Bureau of Code Enforcement is composed of a Building Inspector, a Plumbing Inspector, an Electrical Inspector, Code Enforcement Of?cers and Housing InspectOrs, in addition to clerical support staff. The Code Enforcement Of?cers generally conduct construction inspections, while the Housing Inspectors typically perform rental inspections, but both perform building and rental inspections or inSpections resulting from complaints upon occasion. These non-clerical employees are required to complete and pass Civil Service examinations in order to become permanent in their position, and are also required to complete one week each year of continuing education under the New York State Uniform Codes. The Grand Jury discovered that not all employees had passed the requisite exams, or even taken them in one case, and throughout the department an endemic lack of knowledge was evidenced regarding their duties and responsibilities, con?icts of interest, fire watches, fire doors, and other life safety issues. In addition, there is no background check of prospective inspectors seeking employment in the Codes Department, nor checking of references before hiring. By the time of the inspection of 104 Jay Street in March of 201 S, the Codes Department had issued computer tablets to both the Code Enforcement Of?cers and the Housing Inspectors to use, which centained a software program called MUNIS, into which inspectors could enter the results of inspections on forms, which then automatically uploaded to a server in the Code Enforcement Of?ce upon their return to City Hall. The Grand Jury was informed that the forms in MUNIS could be changed or added to by the city?s Information Technology department as the Codes Department found necessary. The Grand Jury learned that although employees were required to use the tablets, not all did, and there were no repercussions for a failure to utilize the tablets during ?eld inspections. Some inspectors continued to use other electronic devices or written forms for reports, and then usually entered the data into MUNIS after returning to their of?ces. The Grand Jury also learned that a written Policy Manual for the Code Enforcement Of?ce had been developed by an outside consultant, each portion of which was reviewed and signed by city of?cials in 2012, after which the manual was distributed to every Code Enforcement Officer and Housing Inspector in the Codes of?ce. However, a supervisor testified that the Policy Manual was never formally adopted, and Code Department employees also testi?ed that, although they had the manual, they were neither familiar with its contents, not used it in their work. The Grand Jury also learned that Section 48 of the City Code of Ethics prohibited employees from discretionary decisions where they may have a ?nancial conflict, and directed that they notify supervisors when such potential conflicts occurred. However, employees of the Code Enforcement Of?ce were unaware of any conflict rules governing their behavior, and they believed it proper to conduct inspections of properties owned by relatives, friends or persons well known to them. In addition, testimony was given that the Codes Department was permitted to accept gifts from interested parties, provided the gifts were below $75.00 in value on any one occasion. Likewise, there is little direct supervision of employees charged with inspections, and no attempt is made to monitor their activities or location during the work day. Schenectady City Code Section 156-2 provides for a ?Fire Inspector? to be appointed for the city, whose required quali?cations included five years of experience as a ?reman or its equivalent and working knowledge of the state and local ?re prevention codes. The job of the Fire Inspector includes making inSpeetions under the Fire Prevention Code and mandating the correction of violations and conditions liable to cause ?re or endanger lives from ?res. The City of Schenectady had not filled that position for at least three years at the time of the ?re, instead putting ?re inspectiOns entirely into the hands of the Codes Department. That position has still not been filled. Under the Uniform Code of New York, which sets the minimum standards for all housing in the state, multiple dwelling units such as 104 Jay Street are classi?ed as Group R-2, and require not just autOmatic fire alarm systems, but also the monitoring component which results in noti?cation to the ?re department of any alarms or trouble with the system. In addition, the Uniform Code requires that annual inspections be performed and certifications be issued for all alarm systems in R-2 buildings. At the time of the ?re, the Codes Department had no way of knowing if a building?s ?re alarm or its monitoring system became inoperable, or if the annual certification was not obtained, unless so informed voluntarily by the monitoring or inspecting company. On June 12, 2015, after the ?re at 104 Jay Street, the City notified all ?Service Providers? licensed to perform inspections in the city that, as of July 1, 2015, all such licensed inspectors of. ?re alarm systems 10 creating test reports had to electronically tile with the Codes Department the annual reports for every building they inspected. The City contracted with an outside provider for a program called ?The Compliance Engine? to oversee compliance with the new requirements, and to notify the Codes Department of properties which failed inspections or for which inspections were not performed in a timely manner. Employees of the Codes Department filled out applications for employment, but the individuals responsible for hiring in the department conducted no background checks on the applicants, did not check references, an applicant?s credit or bankruptcy history, nor verified claimed experience in the building industry. Although thejob application form inquired as to prior criminal history, the city is unable to verify the accuracy of any representations. The New York State Fire Code of 2010 permitted the Building Department to require a Knox box at every 1-1-2 multiple residence building. None was ever required at 104 Jay Street and it has not been the practice of the Bureau of Code Enforcement to require one be installed in such buildings. This lack makes entry by emergency responding personnel into secure buildings problematic. CONCLUSION It is the collective view of the Grand Jury that the numerous failures of the Schenectady Bureau of Code Enforcement office as detailed hereinabove directly contributed to the deaths and injuries which occurred at 104 Jay Street in Schenectady on March 6, 2015. 11 RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATION ONE ADOPT THE POLICY MANUAL FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE PREVIOUSLY CREATED AND ADD POLICIES RELATING TO SUPERVISION, CODE VIOLATION REPORTS, INSPECTIONS AND REPORTING, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. The adoption and amendment of the Policy Manual created and approved for the Codes Department is needed to provide for better supervision, organization, delineation of employee duties and responsibilities and training of employees of the Bureau of Code Enforcement. The Policy Manual fails to Specify the duties and responsibilities of supervisors in the building department, and there is little overall direct supervision of the employees. Although the employees use city motor vehicles for the conduction of inspections, no GPS monitors are used to keep track of where employees are and what they are doing during the work day, as is done by the Police Department. The Grand Jury recommends the installation of GPS monitors in all city vehicles used by the Codes Department to permit supervisory monitoring of inspectors" locations and work performances. Employees of the Codes Department should be subject to regular, documented performance reviews, and complaints about employees should be maintained in their personnel files. Personnel complaints, disciplinary andx?or counseling actions should be memorialized in personnel files. The use of electronic devices to take pictures, record the results of inspections in the MUNIS system, and detail violations found needs to be mandated and enforced for all employees in the Policy Manual. Likewise, the Policy Manual should require that copies of all Code 12 Violation Reports received from the Schenectady Fire Department be kept in the relevant building?s tile in MUNIS, together with the date received, the person(s) assigned to investigate that complaint, the date so assigned, the inspections performed and the results of those inSpections, so as to permit accountability of both supervisors and employees. The City of Schenectady has adopted an ordinance (Section 167-13) which requires the Building Inspector to report the activities of the Codes Department annually to the Mayor and further requires all inspections and maintenance reports to the City be sent electronically. As previously noted, the city has contracted with a service provider to assist in requiring owners and managers of multiple residences to file the annual inspections of their building?s fire alarm systems mandated by the New York State Fire Prevention Code, but there are no penalties for failures to comply with these reporting requirements. An ordinance should be adopted by the City Council, stating that failure to report compliance with the requirements of the New York State Uniform Codes with respect to inSpections and maintenance of life-safety components in a building to the Codes Department in such form as mandated by the Building InSpector is a criminal offense, with penalties. A departmental con?ict of interest policy for the Bureau of Code Enforcement should also be adopted which is specifically directed at that department and addresses discretionary decisions and inspections by inspectors connected to applicants or building owners by blood, ?'iendship, work relationship or any other factor that could reasonably be found to create an appearance of impropriety. Gifts in any form to employees of the building department should be forbidden. Violations of the con?ict of interest policy should resuit in appropriate disciplinary action. 13 The satisfactory completion of the annual training of housing inspectors and building inapectors required by New York State Division of Code Enforcement and Administration should be documented by sworn statements of employees kept in their personnel file. RECOMMENDATION TWO PERFORM INSPECTIONS OF LIFE-SAFETY SYSTEMS IN ALL MULTIPLE RESIDENCES IN THE CITY OF SCHENECTADY The longstanding poor condition of 104 Jay Street, including the lack of tire doors on the internal Stairways, a secure key system, an unsecured and inoperable fire alarm panel, as well as the ignoring of the Fire Department?s CVRs, contributed to the deaths and injuries that occurred at the building on March 6, 2015. There was no indication that the conditions at 104 Jay Street were unique in the city of Schenectady. The Grand Jury recommends that the city Bureau of Code Enforcement undertake immediate inspections of all class R-Z Multiple Residences within the City of Schenectady, with special attention paid to the documentation of each building?s life safety components, to ensure current compliance with the New York State Uniform Code and to create a ?baseline? of information in the MUNIS system with respect to all such multiple residences for Codes Department employees? future use and reference. 14 RECOMMENDATION THREE ADOPT A POLICY REQUIRING SECURE, OPERABLE KEY BOXES BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED ON ALL MULTIPLE RESIDENCES The New York State Fire Code permits the Building Inspector to require secure key boxes on all multiple residences in the city. The Building Inapector should be directed by the Mayor to mandate such installations on all multiple residences in the City within a reasonable period of time, in a manner consistent with the New York State Uniform Code. RECOMMENDATION FOUR INCREASE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR PERSISTENT FALSE ALARMS AND MANDATE REPORTING TO THE CORPORATION COUNSEL OF ALL PERSISTENT FALSE ALARMS BY ADDRESS. The continual false alarms from 104 Jay Street contributed directly to the compromised condition of the ?re alarm system at the time of the fire, as tenants became angry and disgruntled by constant alarms sounding. In addition, the persistent false alarms reduced tenant response to alarms. The current City Code Section 124-22, which provides for administrative fees of up to one hundred twenty ?ve ($125.00) dollars to be charged to owners after three false alarms should be amended to inorease the administrative fee amount, so as to provide a greater deterrent effect upon the owners of multiple residences in the City of Schenectady who fail to provide properly responsive ?re protection systems for their buildings. The Fire Department should be required to notify electronically both the Codes Department and the Corporation Counsel?s of?ce of false 15 alarms so that persistent false alarms can be more accurately and electronically tracked and appropriate action taken. RECOMMENDATION FIVE ADOPT AN ORDINANCE MANDATING THAT THE CITY ASSESSOR NOTIFY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE OF THE CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP OF ANY MULTIPLE RESIDENCE GROUP BUILDING IN THE CITY OF SCHENECTADY. Testimony from a Codes Department supervisor indicated that although a change in ownership of a multiple residence R-2 Group building Such as 104 Jay Street mandated a complete building inspection, they received no notice of changes in ovmership until the owner volunteered the information or came in for a Certi?cate of Occupancy upon a change in tenancy or filed a landlord registration form. The building at 104 Jay Street changed its owner in October of 2014, but no inapection was scheduled until a new building manager registration was completed in early 2015, and the inSpection was not done until March 5, 2015, the day before the fire. It is impossible to determine if an earlier inspection may have resulted in repairs or improvements to life?safety components at 104 Jay Street, but the nearly month delay may have contributed to the tragic results of the fire. The Grand Jury recommends that the City Assessor or other appropriate of?ce be directed by ordinance or policy to immediately notify the Code Enforcement Of?ce upon receipt of information of a change in ownership of a multiple residence building as re?ected on New York State Office of Real Property Services forms filed with a deed in New York State and reported by law to the city Assessor. 16 RECOMMENDATION SIX PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT The failure of the City?s Code Department and Human Resources Department to conduct adequate investigatioas of the personal, ?nancial and employment background of prospective employees leads to the hiring of individuals who are not quali?ed for the positions applied fer, or who have employment and/or personal histories that are not appropriate for hiring as code enforcement of?cers and that may impact the safety of residents of the City of Schenectady. The Grand Jury recommends that a policy be adopted to ensure that appropriate supervisors in the Codes Department investigate all prospective non-clerical employee?s backgrounds with respect to their criminal records, bankruptcies, prior work experience in the building trades, building inspection, construction or other related employment, and to check persona] references. RECOMMENDATION SEVEN ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THIRD PARTY ALARM MONITORING COMPANIES TO NOTIFY THE CODES DEPARTMENT AND FIRE INSPECTOR WHEN SERVICES ARE CANCELLED OR The Uniform Code requires third party alarm monitoring service of multiple residences, such as 104 Jay Street, so that when an alarm is activated, it will automatically notify the ?re department and property owner or manager. If the monitoring service is cancelled or terminated, creating a life threatening condition, the Codes Department is required by New York Fire Prevention Code to issue a fire watch or order to vacate on the building until it is restored. 17 Currently, there are no policies, procedures or ordinances in effect governing how the Codes Department is notified when an alarm monitoring service is cancelled or terminated. It is recommended that the City adopt an ordinance requiring property owners and/or managers to provide proof that an alarm system is being monitored by a third party, including the name of the service provider, address, contact information and copies of paid invoices for the annual service. It is also recommended that the Codes Department develop a policy and procedure requiring the Department to be electronically noti?ed of the cancellation or teimination of an alarm system monitoring service immediately upon such cancellation or termination. It is also recommended that the City adopt a law making the failure to immediately notify the Codes Department and Fire Inapector of such cancellation or termination a criminal offense with appropriate penalties. RECOMMENDATION EIGHT FILL THE VACANT POSITION OF FIRE INSPECTOR The City of Schenectady Code, Chapter 156-2 provides the qualifications required for the position of Fire InSpector. The position was not ?lled at the time of the ?re at 104 Jay Street and remains vacant to this day. It is recommended that the City of Schenectady fill this position as soon as possible to allow an experienced fire inspector to conduct life-safety inapections on properties within the City. 18 WE THE GRAND JURV OF THE COUNTY COURT OF SCHENECTADV COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW SECTION 190.35 BASED UPON OUR STATED FINDINGS, SUBMIT THIS REPORT RECOMMENDING LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. ectfully submitted, ROBERT A .CARNEY District Attorney Schenectady County g/z FOREPERSON Special Grand Jury Date Reported: ?5 19