PRESS RELEASE SCHENECTADY COUNTY APRIL 2, 2018 DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE whe fire at 104 vay street in the City of Schenectady on March 6, 2015, that took the lives of four people and seriously Injured three others, wee 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 gury were unsealed in Schenectady County Court. They charged Jason Sacks, the building manager responsible for the maintenance of 104 vay 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, 2028, Mr. Sacks pled guilty to four counts of criminally negligent homicide and is scheduled to be sentenced on April 6, 2018. on March 6, 2018, Mr. Tyree was acquitted by a jury of the homicide charges but was convicted of a felony charge for Offering a False Instrunent for Filing for falsely claiming on his application for employment with the City of Schenectady that he had no criminal convictions. He is acheduled to be sentenced on May 8, 2028.‘The Grand Jury continued its investigation into this fire and filed 2 report on May 17, 2017, pureuant to ite authority under Section 190.85 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Law recommending “legislative, executive or adninistrative action in the public interest based on stated findings.” That report was sealed by Schenectady County Court Judge Matthew Sypniewoki 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 190.85(2) (a). 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 Enforcenent 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 wed a total of 14 code Violation Reports (hereafter referred to as CVRs) regarding 104 Jay Street to the Bureau of Code Enforcement (hereafterreferred to as BCE) 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. anong the violations noted (sone on multiple occasions) were: the absence of fire doors at stairwells, inoperable smoke alarns, 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 then in the two years prior to the fire.4, Firefighters testified that the absence of any renedial action for the conditions they complained about Giscouraged them from continuing to file CVRs in relation to 10¢ Jay street. 5. Despite the dozens and dozens of false alarms at 104 vay Street, the City did nothing to enforce the city code provision that permits aduinistrative fees to be assessed against an ower 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 gay Street. At least one tenant delayed his escape from the building to pull a fire alarn in the hallway that aid 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 gay street referencing the conmunication. 7. The City Code requires a complete building inspection prior to ieeuance 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 gury 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 of GPS monitors delineation of supervisory responsibilities, u in cars used by BCE employees, incorporates performance standards and reviews and mandates filing, action, and accountability for CVRs received from the Fize 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 systens. Ethics rules should be tightened regarding inspections including a prohibition of gifts to employees of the building department. 2, ‘The BCE should undertake immediate inspections of all multiple reaidences 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 clains 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. 7. Adopt an ordinance requiring third-party alarm monitoring companies to notify the BCE and Fire Inspector when services are cancelled or terminated. 8. FL11 the vacant position of fire inspector. District Attorney Robert M. Carney stated, “With the release of this report by the special Grand Jury empancled in October of 2016, ny office has now completed its work in investigating the circunstances of the accidental fire that tookthe lives of four people on March 6, 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 if acted upon will make it less Likely that such 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 5), and that other changes have been made (such as oversight of the BCE by the Public Safety Commissioner and an Assistant Police chief) but this investigation has revealed that more needs to be done. 1 am hopeful that the Grand Jury's hard work in this matter will result in much needed improvenent 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 Enforcenent in keeping people safe is revealed by the tragic consequences of March 6, 2015, and ite bureaucratic failures documented in this report must be fully renedied moving forward.” For further information contact District Attorney Robert M. carney at (518) 388-4364 (office) or (518) 376-7255 (cell).THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SCHENECTADY 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 190.85(1)(e)‘After receiving instructions from the Distt Attomey ofthe County of Schenectady, and upon due deliberation and consideration ofthe evidence before it, the Grand Juy hereby submits the following report pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law, Section 190,85(1)), “proposing recommendations for legislative, executive or administrative action nthe public interest based ‘upon the stated findings” FINDINGS ‘THE BUILDING AT 104 JAY STREET (On March 6, 2015, a fire accidentally started in a tonant’s apartment at 104 Jay Street,» 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 inthe deaths of four (4) tenants and severe injuries to several others. At the time of the fte, the five story building at 104 Jay Street contained 2 basement, & first floor with two empty commercial spaces, and four higher, residential floors, each with five partments. The building hed an older elevator and although it had interior stairs, to access a hhigher floor required walking down the common hallway of exch floor to reach the staircase for the next story, and then repeating the process for each ascending floor. There were no doors between the hallways and stairwells atthe time of the fire. “The city of Schenectady's Bureau of Code Enforcement (also referred to herein as the “Codes Department") maintained paper files for every property inthe city. The Codes Department file for 104 Jay Street showed that fire 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Order to Vacate, the Codes Department required that a Fire Watch be instinted, which under the ‘New York State Fite Code permitted continued oceupaney by the tenants, ut required certified hourly inspections ofthe building bythe building manager or his representative uni the elem system was back online. 12013 and 2014, the two years before the fire, the Fite Department isued a total of 14 Code Violation Reports as to 104 Jay Street, It reported that on numerous oecesions when the Fire Department responded tothe builng, the alam 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 fre department and the owner or his agent have a key, typically located on the outside ofa building and which contains a master key to open the secured main door of a mltipe residence and any secured interior dors), and the fact that the alarm pane! box itself was unsecured (On March 1, 2014, almost exactly a year before the tragic fire at 104 Jay Street, Fire Department Code Violation Report stated in part “Building poses numerous hazards that can/will be fatal ots occupants and EMS agencies”. Again in October of 2014 ess than five ‘months before the fire, the Schenectady Fire Department notified the Codes Department: * In ener this building isin very oor condition from basement to r00" Codes Department employees acknowledged tothe Grand Jury the receipt of those Code Violation Reports. The Gran Jury's investigation showed that there was no system in place whereby the Fire Department's Code Violation Reports were logged in, fled or memorialized in any way, and tha there was no method for keeping any records, ether 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 Offices or Housing Inspectors, no one ever logged the violations or followed up on any resulting Inspections, and supervisors did not know iinspetions were ever atusly performed. The Grand Jury leamed 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 Codes Department supervisor that 104 Jay Steet, despite all the Code Violation Reports fled by the Schenectady Fire Department, “From a codes standpoint... didn’t have a high profile”, “that the interactions with inspectors was[sic} ona routine bass”, 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 file bythe Fire Department for 104 Jay Stet in the two years before the fire. Firefighters also testified that they often didnot fle Code Violation Reports for 104 Jay Street because they had already been filed so many times before without any remedial ation being token. In addition to the nonfeasance ofthe Codes Department with respect to the numerous Code Violation Reports received from the Fire Department, there were several ther factors Which contributed, directly or indizetly, to the dangerous, entrapping conditions at 104 Jay Street on March 62015. Inthe years immediately prior to the fie, the building had als had persistent false alarms esuiting in merous responses by the Schenectady Fre Department, and notification of the building's manager, Firefighters reported going to 104 Jay Steet “dozens of times” inthe years immediately before the fre and tenants testified thet false alarms happened three to four times a month. One firefighter estimated he had been to the building at least 50 10 60 times foralarms. On none of the dazens of occasions thatthe Fire Department responded to 104 Jay Street {in the 1wo years before March 5, 2015 was there actually a fire. ‘The Schenectady City Code, (the “City Code") Section 124-22 provides thatthe owner (of a building with persistent false alarms can be charged an “administrative fee” in increasing ‘amounts until the fourth such alarm and all subsequent alarms carry fees of one hundred and ‘twenty-five dollars ($125.00). Despite the history of persistent nuisance alarms at 104 Jay Street in the years before the fire, no such administrative fees were ever imposed. Asaresult of those continuous false alarms, which required a building representative's appearance atthe building, tenants were shown by building employees how to silence and reset the alarms, In order to da that, the door tothe alarm panel was lef unlocked, and the lock mechanisin was actually physically damaged so as to render the door to the pane! unlockable. ‘The Grand Jury learned that the fire alarm panel at 104 Jay Street contained butions behind that unlocked front alarm panel door, clearly marked, that separately permitted the silencing and then resetting ofthe 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, ifan alarm on any floor was silenced, none of the smoke detectors on that floor would function until the alarm was reset atthe 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 fice‘The multitude of responses to 104 Jay Steet by the Fire Department showed thatthe alarms were being continually reset during 2014, However, beginning in November of 2014, the ‘number of fire related calls to the Fire Department from 104 Jay Steet dramatically deceased Prior tothe fire on March 6, 2015, he lst fire related eal to 104 Jay Steet occurred on Fanary 30, 2015, which was the lst ime the alarm system was ese by the Fire Department and restored toa functional satus. After January 30,2015, the evidence before the Grand Jury Showed thatthe alarm panel had been silenes and not reset tothe extent that, atthe time ofthe fire, ll ofthe residential flor alarm circuits were out of sevice. A tenant of the floor where the fire originated testified tha he pulled fire alarm in the hallway shorly after the fie stated and nothing happened. In Octaber of 2014, the security company which had the monitoring contact for 104 Jay Street, whereby the fire department was informed offre alarms atthe building, received notification that the dedicated phone line at 104 Jay Stret was no longer inservice. I was terminated by the bulng’s management. The security company then sent fax othe Codes Department, notifying it ofthe 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 bythe appropriate Codes officials, and no Codes Department employee admitted knowledge ofits receipt nor was anything placed in the file for 104 Jay Street referencing that communication. Notice tothe Cordes 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 o register, or have his building manager register, with the Codes Department, providing contact information and the name and address of the person responsible fo the building. City Code also requires that a Certificate of Occupancy be obtained before any apartment is rented. In addition, upon a new ‘owner taking possession, the City Code requires that a complete building inspection be done ‘before any apartments are rented. However, there is currently no mechanism in place whereby the Codes Department is notified 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 inspection 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 Officers and Housing Inspectors, in adcition to clerical support staff. The Code Enforcement Officers generally conduct construction inspestions, while the Housing Inspectors typically perform rental inspections, but both perform building and rental inspections or inspections resulting from complaints upon occasion. These non-cletical 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, conflicts 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 ofthe inspection of 104 Jay Street in March of 2015, the Codes Department had issued computer tablets to both the Code Enforcement Officers and the Housing Inspectors to use, Which contained 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 Office upon their return to City Hall, The Grand Jury was informed thatthe 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 leamed that although employees were required to use the tablets, not all di, and there were no repercussions for failure to utilize the tablets during field 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 offices. ‘The Grand Jury also learned that a writen Policy Manual for the Code Enforcement Office had been developed by an outside consultant, each portion of which was reviewed and. signed by city officials in 2012, afer which the manusl was dstibted to every Code Enforcement Officer and Housing Inspector in the Codes office. However, a supervisor testified thatthe Policy Manual as never formally adopted and Code Department employees also testified tha, although they had the manual, they were neither familiar With its content, nor used ‘tin their work “The Grand Jury also leamed that Section 4 ofthe City Code of Fihies prohibited employees from discretionary decisions where they may have a financial confit, and directed that they notify supervisors wien such potential conflicts occurred, However, employees ofthe Code Bi forcement Office were unaware of any conflict rules governing their behavior, and they believed it proper to conduct inspections of properties owned by rel , ftiends 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 ceasion, Like theres litle direst supervision of employces charged with inspections, and io attempt is made to monitor their activities or locaton during the work day Schenectady City Coe Section 156-2 provides fr a “ite Inspector" o be appointed for the city, whose rquired qualifctions included five years of experience as a fireman or its cauivalent and working knowledge ofthe state and local fire prevention codes. The job ofthe Fire Inspector includes making inspections under the Fire Prevention Code and mandating the correction of violations and conditions table to cause fire or endanger lives from fires. The City of Schenectady bad not filled tha positon for at least three years a the time ofthe fire, instead ptng fire inspections entirely into the hands of the Codes Department. That position has still sot been file. Under the Uniform Code of New York, which sts the minimum standards forall housing in the state, multiple welling units such a8 104 Jay Steet ae classified as Group R-2, and require not just automatic fice alarm systems, but also the monitoring component which results in notification to the fire department of any lars or trouble withthe system. In addition, the Uniform Code requires tht annval inspections be performed and certifications be issue fo all farm systems in R-2 buildings. A the time of theft, the Codes Department had no way of knowing a building's fire alarm or its monitoring system became inoperable, or if the annval certification was not obtained, unless so informed voluntarily bythe monitoring o inspecting company. On June 12,2015, ater the fire at 104 Jay Street, the City notified all “Service Providers” ensed to perform inspections in the eity that, as of July 1, 2015, all such licensed inspectors of fire alarm systems 10eating test reports had to electronically file with the Codes Department the annual reports for every building they inspected. The City contrasted with an outside provider fora program called “The Compliance Engine” to oversee compliance with the new requirements an to notify the Codes Department of properties which filed inspetions or for which inspections were not performed in a timely manner. Employees ofthe Cades Department filed ou applications for employment, but the individuals responsible for hiring inthe department conducted no background shecks onthe applicants did not check references, an applicant's credit or bankruptcy history, nor verified claimed experience inthe building industry. Although the job 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 B fing Department to requite nox box at every R-2 multiple residence building, None was ever required at 108 Jay Steet and ithas not been the practice of the Bureau of Code Enforcement to require one he installed in such bwilings. This lick makes enty by emergency respontng personnel into secure buildings problematic. CONCLUSION Itis the colletive view of the Grand Jury that the numerous failures ofthe Schenectady Bureau of Code Enforcement office as detailed hereinabove diretly contributed to the deaths ‘and injuries which occurred at 104 Jay Street in Schenectady on March 6, 2015, a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 erated and approved for the Codes Department is needed to provide for better supervision, organization, delineation of employee duties and responsibilities and taining of employees ofthe Bureau of Code Enforcement. The Policy Manual fils to specify the duties and responsiilites of supervisors inthe builaing department, and there i itl overall direct supervision ofthe employees. Although the employees use city motor vehicles forthe 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 ‘ehicles used by the Codes Department to permit supervisory monitoring of inspectors locations and work performances. Employees of the Codes Department should be subjest to regular, documented pesformance reviews, and complainss about employees should be maintained in their personnel ‘es. Personnel complains, disciplinary and/or counseling actions should be memorialized in personne! files. ‘The use of eectionie devices to take pitues,reeord the results of inspections in the MUNIS system, and detail violations found needs to be mandated and enforced fr all employees in the Policy Manual. Likewise, the Policy Manual should require that copies of all Code 2‘Violation Reports received from the Schenectady Fire Department be kept in the relevant ‘building's file 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 inspeations, 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 {hilures 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 appropriate penalties. A departmental conflict 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, fiendship, 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 conflict of interest policy should result in appropriate disciplinary action, 3‘The satisfactory completion of the annual training of housing inspectors and building inspectors required by New York State Division of Code Enforcement and Administration should be documented by sworn statements of employees kept in their personnel fle 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 lec of fie doors on the intemal stairways, @ secure Key system, an unsecured and inoperable fire latm panel, as well as the ignoring of the Fire Department's CVRS, contributed tothe deaths and injuries that occurred atthe building on March 6, 2015, There was no indication thatthe conditions at 104 Jay Street ‘were unique in the city of Schenectady. ‘The Grand Jury recommends thatthe city Bureau of Code Enforcement undertake immediate inspections of all class R-2 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,RECOMMENDATION THRE! 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 Inspector 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 Jey Street contributed directly o the compromised condition of the fire alarm system athe time ofthe fie, as tenants became angry and disgruntled by constant alarms sounding n ton, the persistent false alarms reduced tenant response to slams, The curent City Code Section 124-22, which provides for administrative fees of upto cone hundred twenty five ($125.0) dollars to be charged 1 owners after tree false alarms should be amended to inerease the administrative fee amount, so ast provide a greater deterrent effect upon the owners of multiple residences inthe City of Schenectady who fil to provide propery responsive fre protection systems for their buildings. The Fire Department shouldbe required o notify electronically both the Codes Department and the Corporation Counsel's office of false 6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 R-2 GROUP BUILDING IN THE, CITY OF SCHENECTADY. ‘Testimony from a Codes Department supervisor indicated that although a change in ‘ownership of « muitple residence R-2 Group building such as 104 Jay Street mandated a complete building inspection, they received no notice of changes in ownership util the ower ‘volunteered the information or came in fr a Certificate of Occupancy upon a change in tenancy or fled a landlord repistation form, The building t 104 Jay Steet changed its owner in October of 2014, but no inspection was scheduled until a new building manager registration was completed in carly 2015, and the ingpection was not done until March 5, 2015, the day before the fire, It is impossible to determine if an earlier inspect may have resulted in repairs oF improvements to life-safety components at 104 Jay Steet, bu he nearly five month delay may have contributed to the tage results ofthe fire “The Grand Jury recommends thatthe City Assessor or other appropriate office be directed by ondinance or policy to immediately notify the Code Enforcement Office upon receipt of information ofa change in ownership of @ R2 multiple residence building as reflected on New York State Office of Real Property Services forms filed with a dead in New York State and reported by law tothe city Assessor. 16RECOMMENDATION SIX PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYEES OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT The failure ofthe City’s Code Department and Human Resources Department to conduct adequate investigations ofthe persona, financial and employment background of prospective employees leads tthe hiting of individuals who are not qualified fr the pesitions applied for, or who have employment andor personal histories that ae not appropriate for hiing as code enforcement officers and that may impact the sefety of residents ofthe City of Schenectady. ‘The Grand Jury recommends that a policy be adopted to ensue that appropriate supervisors in the Codes Department investigate all prospective non-lerieal employee's backgrounds with respect to their criminal records, bankruptcies, prior work experience in the building trades, building inspection, constuction or other related employment, and to check personal 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 TERMINATED ‘The Uniform Code reguites 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 fire department and property owner or manager. If te monitoring service is cancelled or terminated, creating 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 itis restored FoCuirently, there are no policies, procedures or ordinances in effect governing how the Codes Department is notified when an alarm monitoring service is eancelled or terminated. Itis recommended thatthe 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 pid invoices forthe annual service, Its also recommended that the Codes Department develop a policy and procedure requiring the Department to be electronically notified ofthe cancellation or termination of an alarm system monitoring service immediately upon such cancellation or termination. Its also recommended that the City adopt a law making the feilure to immediately notify the Codes Department and Fire Inspector of such cancellation or termination a criminal offense with appropriate penalties RECOMMENDATION FIGHT FILL THE VACANT POSITION OF FIRE INSPECTOR ‘The Cit of Schenectady Code, Chapter 156-2 provides the qualifications required for the positon of Fire Inspector, The postion was no filled atthe time of the fire at 104 Jay Stret and remains vacant to this day. Itis recommended that the City of Schenectady fil his position as soon as possible to allow an experience fire inspector to conduct lfe-safety inspections on properties within the City 18WE THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY COURT OF SCHENECTADY COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, FOURTH JUDICIAL DI: rRICT, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW SECTION 190.85 (1)(C ), BASED UPON OUR STATED FINDINGS, SUBMIT THIS REPORT RECOMMENDING LEGISLATIVE, EXECUTIVE, AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IN THE PUBLIC / 1ectfully submitted, ROBERT M. CARNEY District Attorney Schenectady County LEE FOREPERSON Special Grand Jury Date Reported: INTEREST. 9