Public Safety Committee 4232024

Good morning.

The Public Safety Committee meeting will come to order.

It's 9.32 a.m., April 23rd, 2024. I'm Robert Kettle, Chair of the Public Safety Committee.

Will the committee clerk please call the roll?

Councilmember Hollingsworth.

Present.

Councilmember Moore.

Present.

Council President Nelson.

Present.

Councilmember Saka.

Here.

Chair Kettle.

Here.

Chair, there are five members present.

Good, thank you.

If there's no objection, the agenda will be adopted.

Hearing and seeing no objection, the agenda is adopted.

We will now open the hybrid public comment period.

The public comments should relate to items on today's agenda or within the purview of the committee.

Clerk, how many speakers are signed up for today?

Chair, there are two in person and one remote.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We will start with the in-person speakers.

First, clerk, can you please read the public comment instructions?

The public comment period will be moderated in the following manner.

The public comment period is up to 20 minutes.

Excuse me.

Speakers will be called in the order which they registered.

Speakers will alternate between sorry, will hear a chime after 10 seconds are left of their time.

Speakers' mics will be muted if they do not end their comment within the allotted time to allow us to call on the next speaker.

The public comment period is now open, and we will begin with the first speaker on the list.

The first in-person speaker is Rudy Pantota.

The little mic or the big mic?

The big mic's probably a little bit better.

For the big boys.

My name's Rudy Pantoja, or Pantoja.

Hey, no problem.

No issues here.

Hey, I'm a Northender, and I'm here for one reason.

One, it's Alcohol Awareness Month.

I've reached out to the acting chief, For 911, I've reached out to the Seattle Fire Department.

I've reached out to Chief Diaz and a handful of others and saying, why everything else?

Cinco de Mayo's coming up.

We got a DUI squad.

We got a DV unit that's dealing not with fentanyl, but with alcohol and weed.

Why not Alcohol Awareness Month?

I swear to God, I'm not hearing anything back from anybody.

about that stuff because it's the social norm.

And I think there's a little bit of denial about people of, well, you know, I drink, but if something happens, I don't want to be responsible for my actions based on alcohol, but I don't do fentanyl.

So it's okay.

Tell you what, I see it on the streets every day.

I'm working the Aurora corridor.

I'm working Fremont.

I'm working Crown Hill.

I see it every day.

I see our young kids.

drinking alcohol, smoking weed, acting out, driving really fast in the neighborhood, firing out firearms, stealing backpacks while the adults are home, drinking their wine, feeling mighty fine, you know, and taking one of those pills for anxiety.

It's all good, right on.

And I swear to God, what's the deal here?

I see people on the streets that are suffering in North Seattle.

I called 911. 911 says, well, hopefully we'll get there when we can.

Number two is that call fire.

Fire won't respond until a police officer responds.

So we're told to call 211. And 211 says call the crisis line.

Crisis line says, well, call 911. 911 says, well, the care team doesn't do what, does not provide services for you.

I mean, come on, council members.

You know, we can do better than that.

And don't leave it up to us gardeners to be social workers, cops, and the cleanup guy.

You know what?

It's nasty, man.

It's nasty.

So I'll let you know.

My time is up.

Thank you very much.

Alcohol Awareness Month.

Let's do it before Cinco de Mayo.

We don't, not all of us Mexicans drink tequila and cerveza.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next up is Chris Woodward.

Hello.

Hey, good morning, council members.

My name is Chris Woodward.

I am with the Alliance for Pioneer Square.

We're an economic development and community development organization located in Pioneer Square.

Providing comment today in regards to the Seattle Fire Department dangerous building ordinance.

We're generally supportive of this ordinance as it seeks to achieve greater public safety throughout districts and neighborhoods like Pioneer Square by addressing the harms caused by derelict buildings.

However, we are concerned with the lack of specific language regarding how the ordinance applies to the Pioneer Square Preservation District, specifically relating to the demolition of historic structures and the development and use of those demolition sites.

The Preservation District's rules state, I'm just gonna reach my phone here, so sorry about the lack of eye contact.

Any alteration, demolition, construction, reconstruction, restoration, and remodeling of any structure within the district boundary must receive a certificate of approval before any building or other license can be granted.

So new construction must be visibly compatible with the predominant architectural styles, including materials, inherent historical character of the district.

Although new projects don't need to duplicate original facades, the design process ought to involve consideration of the typical historical building, historical character and detail within the district.

So that's the technical language there.

So we have two recommendations for the committee when you're thinking about this ordinance.

and the alteration of it.

So first, ensure language is included that ensures the Pioneer Square Preservation District rules are followed in all those alterations, demolitions, constructions, et cetera.

And this is just as it applies to buildings within Pioneer Square, obviously.

And the second, include language about the future use of demolition sites, stipulating that uses provide meaningful community benefits, ideally mixed use and residential...

not a surface parking lot.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

The first remote speaker is Jane Chang.

Please press star six when you hear the prompt you have been unmuted.

Whenever you're ready, Jane.

Go ahead, please.

Jane, are you there?

I might need to tell her to press star six again.

Jane, you'll need to press star six.

We'll come back to you.

There are no additional registered speakers.

Thank you.

The public comment period has expired.

We will proceed to our items of business.

Members of the public, I want to note this, are encouraged to submit written public comment on the sign-up cards for future meetings, and importantly, email the council at council at seattle.gov.

Thank you everyone for joining us today.

Today is an important day as we look at fire with our two pre-introduction items on today's calendar.

First, the Seattle Fire Code Advisory Board nominations and then also the ordinance as noted on unsafe buildings abatement.

Both items go to elements that are important to improve our public safety posture and the ordinance goes to our strategic framework to address the permissive environment that underlines our public safety challenges that we see today and specifically vacant buildings and lots.

So it's important to hear your briefings and have this discussion.

So again, thank you very much for joining us all.

We will now move on to our first item or six items technically, business.

Will the clerk please read item one into the record?

Agenda items one through six, Fire Code Advisory Board and the appointment and reappointments of Lauren Branford, Matt Trueblood, Carlene M. Comrie, Kevin Marr, and Chris Todd as members of the Seattle Fire Code Advisory Board for briefing and discussion with Assistant Chief Timothy Muniz, City of Seattle Fire Marshal, and Ken Brouillette, Technical Code Manager, Seattle Fire Department.

Welcome, Assistant Chief Muniz, Mr. Brouillette, and also Deputy Chief Suti.

Thank you.

Thank you for joining us and briefing us.

Over to you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for having us this morning.

All right, we're going to give a short presentation on just the Seattle Fire Code Advisory Board to get the committee up to speed on what we do.

So a look back, our Seattle Fire Code, our very first ordinance was way back in 1870. And then following that, we had our Great Seattle Fire.

And the Great Seattle Fire happened on June 6th in 1889. It started about 2.30 in the afternoon in a paint and woodwork shop at Front and Madison.

And over the course of the next 18 hours, it swept southward across 100 acres of Seattle's business district and waterfront and created massive devastation.

So in Seattle, we have the Seattle Construction Codes, and soon you'll be hearing all of the 2021 Seattle Construction Codes.

And they consist of the building, the residential, existing building, mechanical, energy, plumbing, fuel gas code, and of course, my favorite, the Seattle Fire Code.

So in Washington, Washington State also has a state fire code, which is developed by the governor-appointed State Building Code Council.

The state as well as Seattle's fire code are based on the international fire code.

We participate as State Building Code Council appointees on the Fire Code Technical Code Advisory Group by reviewing changes from the previous edition of the International Fire Code, as well as help to review all existing state amendments and any proposed amendments that may occur during the State Building Code Council's code development process.

Seattle and Washington State follow the three-year code development cycle, which is established by the International Code Council.

the State Building Code Council's Technical Advisory Group started meeting just this last week on reviewing the 2024 additions of the International Building Code and International Fire Code, which should go into effect anticipated July of 2026. The Seattle Fire Code Advisory Board, or as we like to call it in the fire department, FCAB, was developed in 1957. FCAB allows the public and local businesses, industry, and technical trades a clear voice in the fire code process.

And board members advise the city on updates and revisions to the code and have played a crucial role in shaping the Seattle Fire Code.

Most recently, back in January, the ordinance that you're going to see coming up with regarding dangerous buildings, they actually reviewed that language, the changes to the 2018 fire code up front.

So we already had presented it to them, let them review it.

They gave their feedback and we made some minor changes to it based on their feedback.

So they already have seen the language that you're going to see later.

These volunteers are appointed, again, as you probably know, by the mayor's office and confirmed by council.

They serve three-year terms without compensation, so we thank them very much for that.

And they also serve as the appeals board for matters related to the Seattle Fire Code.

The main purpose of the Fire Code Advisory Board is to review proposed amendments to the Seattle Fire Code and make recommendations.

During this process, they also are reviewing any other Washington state amendments that could impact the city.

So generally what's going to occur most recently is that we're going through the 2024 code now, which is going to take some time with the state.

and any of those proposed changes that are gonna be presented, I will bring them back to the Fire Code Advisory Board, get their impact or input, and then see if they impact Seattle or not, and then we'll make that known at the state level.

One of the other things that they do is the Fire Code Advisory Board also reviews all administrative rules.

And these are developed by Chief Muniz next to me, the fire marshal.

And these rules are used to address items that are not clearly covered in the Seattle Fire Code or help to further clarify existing provisions within the Seattle Fire Code.

So thank you very much.

That's a short presentation on the Fire Code Advisory Board.

And if you're all right, we'll go forward with the appointments.

Yes, can you review the appointments?

Thank you.

And this is a pre-induction, so formally we'll be doing this at the next meeting, but yes, please proceed through the appointments.

Thank you.

So first, we have...

I'll wait for him to sit down.

We have Lauren Bradford.

Lauren Bradford is going to fill our architect's position, and we also have Matt Trueblood.

He's going to fill our public position, but he does have a background in construction, and their resumes are already out of date.

So both of them have taken two recent positions, and I would like them to explain their new positions that they hold now and a little bit about their background.

So, Lauren, go ahead, and if you would, introduce yourself.

All right.

I've been an architect here in Seattle for 20-some years.

Currently, as of mid-December, working with Soko Tech Consulting.

We are a multinational engineering firm with a small Seattle presence.

I'm involved here in Seattle.

I'm involved mostly with envelope consulting issues, but also...

All sorts of other such as accessibility, fire rating issues, energy code issues and such for projects so far from New York to Hawaii.

So that's what I do.

And then Matt?

Good morning, council members.

My name is Matt Trueblood.

I have a background in construction, as Ken alluded to.

I've been working mostly in the general contracting space for the last 10 years, building various high-rises around the Seattle area.

Most recently, I accepted a position with McKinstry, who's a mechanical contractor out of Soto.

So I'll be starting there as a project manager here in about a week and a half.

Excited to be here.

Thanks for having me.

And if you don't mind, I'll just continue on our reappointments.

We have three reappointments that have served very well on our Fire Code Advisory Board.

The first one is Carlene Comrie.

She represents our service industry, and I'm going to give a plug to her.

She's the owner of Taste of Caribbean, 1212 East Jefferson.

I recommend the wings if you go there.

Definitely get the wings.

Kevin Marr.

Very nice to support small business.

Thank you very much.

Yes, yes.

who represents our fire protection industry.

He's with Patriot Fire.

He also serves with me on the state's Fire Code Technical Advisory Group.

So we have some more input from Seattle on the state level.

And then Chris Todd, who represents our ports.

So those are the three members that are looking for a reappointment also.

They've served us very well over their terms with the Seattle Fire Code Advisory Board.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Again, this is pre-introduction, so we'll do the formal piece at the next meeting along with the same thing with the ordinance.

Any questions?

I'll always start with my Vice Chair if I don't see any hands up.

No questions?

No, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Council President, anybody else?

No?

All pretty straightforward.

Will you go?

Go ahead.

Well, I just would like to know what is the...

What is some of the tricky stuff that you deal with or that the commission has to or the advisory board has to weigh in on?

Where are the points of friction either with incorporating changes at the state or international level or differences of opinion on the board?

So what's nice is that the international codes are all consensus-based.

So they're developed nationally.

So you're able to have input from all sides to begin with.

And so when you start with the model code, what we call the base code, it's already been vetted very much.

And then when it comes down to Washington state level, then we'll sit there and analyze how is that going to input or impact us in Washington state?

Is there something that's being presented that just doesn't work in Washington state and what should we do about it?

And then we bring that down to Seattle also.

As far as anything that's been really contentious lately, I haven't seen anything because again, we try to work those things at the national level.

And we just have a very open and public meetings format that just helps us be able to work through these processes, and we just come up with agreements and put together what I think is great legislation.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

You're good.

Just a few.

First, I want to say thank you for volunteering and looking to serve both you two gentlemen here, plus the other three that are listed, who is someone who has served on boards before.

I know what it means in terms of taking time, your personal time, to go out there and support and effort And it's well respected and well appreciated, at least by me, because it does take time out of your lives, but it's an important mission that you're doing.

So thank you to you two, but also to the others that are on the board.

I also like, you know, looking at the, you know, the backgrounds, all very good.

And I also like, you know, the diversity of types here in terms of the positions.

I like the fact that the ports are well represented, labor.

Two questions, one is, this is kind of standard, okay?

Is there anything that we need to know about from your perspective?

Is there anything, you know, out there that we're not thinking about that, you know, either from the Fire Code Advisory Board, from the Fire Code, or a little bit more broader with fire, or a little bit more broader with public safety, from your perspective?

My biggest concern is where, this is where I need your help.

You need to reach out and help us fill some of our other positions.

The one that we have not been able to fill, the chief and I are coming up, what, seven years in our roles, a little bit more.

And we have not been able to fill the insurance industry role.

It's been vacant for a long period of time.

So we're looking to fill that position.

Major institutions, the last gentleman that we have just took a job at a local fire department, and he's no longer with the major institutions.

And so we've reached out to UW and a few others and just haven't had anybody that's willing to take the time like these two are to volunteer.

But lastly, the mechanical engineer spot that we have open, I think Matt might help me out with his new position, McKinstry, and might be able to help us out there.

We work closely also with the Construction Code Advisory Board, and they have some of the similar positions on their board.

I've been trying to poach some of their members to get them from the Construction Code Advisory Board over here.

I'm actually offering them free boat rides on the fire boat, Chief, and I'm not too sure if I'm allowed to do that or not, anything I can get to get these people to volunteer.

But that is our biggest need right now is to fill those positions.

And then we do have the 2021 fire code that's coming up right now.

And we will be presenting that to you first.

And we just hope that you reach out to us with any questions ahead of time when you do see the legislation upcoming.

So I appreciate it.

Okay, so we'll look at that.

I understand the insurance piece, and that's important across all elements of public safety, and I don't think a lot of people realize that and appreciate it.

Emergency preparedness, the big earthquake, those pieces, where you're talking with fire, even on the crime and security side, so that's very important.

And who knows, maybe we can twist some arms at the Evans School or somewhere there at UW to get somebody to nominate.

Or our council member Rivera knows somebody.

Okay.

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to say that I have regular meetings with the UW, and I'll raise this at my next monthly meeting with them.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

I should have noted, by the way, that Councilmember Rivera, who's not a standing member of this committee, has joined us, and so she's able to ask questions, make comments, just like any of us.

But she won't be able to vote, but then again, we're not voting today.

The other question I have, and this goes to a long-standing back-and-forth with the mayor's office, and not to put you on the spot, but I would be really interested in your thoughts, either directly or through Chief, regarding the comprehensive plan.

To my frustration, public safety is a policy element as it relates to how we're going to grow over the next 20 years, and this is very important.

You know, when I say public safety, a lot of people go straight to crime and security.

You know, boom.

But with the comprehensive plan, fire is so important.

I see that in terms of the densification, in terms of, you know, the crowding of the areas where the fire department may need to, you know, turn into a ladder truck, you know, those kind of considerations.

Recently was a candidate doorbelling all over the place, and when you go in some of these eight-packs, six-packs, it's like a little maze.

I wonder about fire's ability to really get in there and to attack a fire.

That should be a planning consideration.

Then, of course, there's the earthquake and tsunami aspects that should be part of the planning process for the comprehensive plan.

But here's another one based on my many conversations from Chief Scoggins all the way down to different places within the fire department, have many conversations.

We're growing as a city, and per capita, the coverage of the fire department is getting lower and lower.

So how do we as a city plan for the expansion of the fire department to match the expansion of the city, and how do we right-size and how do we place smart placement of potential future fire stations or capabilities, whatever it may be, based on our...

I've said this many times and I'm gonna keep saying it and it's gonna come up when the comprehensive plan comes to us if it's not already in there.

Because the public safety aspect of planning for our future is very important.

So I would welcome as a question, can you give me input?

And you don't have to answer right now because Fire Chief's right behind you.

But I would really like to have that.

And I really want the executive to understand that when I talk about public safety element as a policy element for the comprehensive plan, I'm not talking crime and security.

I'm primarily talking fire and emergency preparedness.

And I'm talking about...

Let's think ahead.

Let's not make our firefighters' lives more difficult in terms of them trying to carry out their mission, A.

And B, with a growing city, how do we match in terms of the capacity that we have in fire.

This also applies to other areas too, but specifically fire today, so.

I'm gonna be very smart answer here and I will be deferring to Chief Skalkas on that request.

I have participated in many comprehensive plans as fire marshals for different jurisdictions.

I just haven't had the opportunity to participate in my role here at the fire department in the city of Seattle.

Oh, that's very interesting.

So you're saying that other jurisdictions, other cities have asked, as a fire marshal and whatnot, have asked for your input on comprehensive plans.

Yeah, most recently was when I was in Tucson, Arizona.

Tucson, Arizona.

Has anybody from Seattle asked for your input on the comprehensive plan?

Me personally?

No.

Okay, well, it's happened.

So there you go.

And I appreciate it.

And again, because I know a lot of people watch Seattle Channel, include the folks upstairs in the executive department.

So, you know, there's my question ahead of time.

So thank you very much.

I really appreciate you coming.

And again, thank you for your service.

For those, by the way, is any Deputy Chief Sudhi and Munis, anything you would like to add?

No, we're good.

Okay.

So thank you very much.

And again, thank you for volunteering because, you know, volunteering matters.

So thank you very much.

All right.

Clerk, can we read the next item into the agenda?

Seattle Fire Department Dangerous Buildings Ordinance Briefing and Discussion with Chief Harold D. Scoggins, Seattle Fire Department, Ann Gorman, Council Central Staff, Michelle Hunter, Code Compliance Manager, SDCI.

She is remote.

Thank you.

All right, thank you so much Chief Scoggins and for the returnees, Assistant Chief Munoz, Deputy Chief Suti, also Ms. Hunter and of course our very own central staff, Ms. Gorman, thank you.

Over to you for the presentation.

Good morning.

Are we gonna pull up the presentation or do I need to click something here?

Oh, there it is.

Are we starting with the, which one?

Yes, okay.

All right, good morning, Chair Ketto, Council President Nelson, and members of the Public Safety Committee.

My name is Harold Scoggins, and I'm honored to be the Fire Chief here in the City of Seattle.

Before we get started with the presentation, I want to lead with a thank you to my team.

You already met Assistant Chief Tim Muniz, who has a big responsibility here in the city, everything that comes out of the ground.

And once it's final, We inspect it, we review the engineering, we make sure the fire and life safety systems are working appropriately, and that's under our fire marshal's purview.

You already met Deputy Chief Sudi, she's our deputy fire marshal.

I wanna say thank you to our Fire Prevention Director, Karen Grove, who spent a great deal of time working on the legislation and all the members of our Fire Prevention Team.

So it's really important to lead with a thank you because they worked extremely hard to get this to where it needs to be.

So we'll go ahead and get rolling.

So the mission of the fire department, you know, that's where we start all of our work in saving lives and protecting property.

And we do this through fire response, emergency response, but also fire prevention.

And it's important to note that.

because we have faced some really challenging times over the past few years on this conversation that we're talking about today.

Dangerous, derelict, vacant buildings.

But this is what grounds us, is our mission as a fire department.

That's really important.

We've all over the .

You may recognize last year had 130 vacant building fires the year before, 90 the year before in the 70s.

So we see this as a growing problem.

And it's important to note that because some may say, why do we need this legislation?

Because there are already so many things that you can do.

We have all those things in play.

but we're still seeing the numbers rise.

So we're trying to offer a different solution to some of these dangerous situations that our firefighters and the community is facing.

So currently, we are working with property owners all over the city, or property managers.

We offer education, we offer solutions.

We're offering all of those things right now.

Our challenge, from time to time, are the non-compliant property owners, or the property owners that don't respond.

That becomes a challenge for us, because what happens is, when that building has been accessed and SDCI has a vacant building group that goes out to connect with the property owners to try to re-secure that building.

But once that building has been accessed and we start responding to fire and medical emergencies at a building that we know is vacant, that becomes a challenge for us.

Because what happens is when people move in, They want to cook just like we cook.

They want to stay warm, so they light fires to do those things.

There's holes in the walls, holes in the floors, holes in the ceilings.

This becomes very important to a person who does not fight fires for a living.

It may not seem like a big deal, but these buildings are designed with one-hour drywall, two-hour exit corridors.

So when you puncture those walls, floors, and ceilings, you change the fire dynamics in that structure and how fast a fire spreads.

So this is why there's a challenge.

And there's a couple of different pieces here.

When we start seeing small fires, eventually they become big fires.

But we also know these buildings are accessed because we also respond to medical responses at these locations.

So that tells us right there that the building has been accessed, and that's pretty important.

to note there.

You know, since the pandemic, we have seen more vacant buildings around the city, and that's just a part of the challenges that we face.

When we go to these fires, we change our tactics.

We have a derelict building standard operating guideline because these buildings are so unsafe.

So we approach these buildings with the mindset that there's no one inside, but if we get information that there is someone inside, we change our tactics and we will then go inside of the structure.

Now in 2023, we had three fire-related deaths in vacant buildings in the city.

So as I see this as an opportunity to prevent the next one, or to prevent a firefighter from getting seriously injured or killed, that becomes very important.

And you'll see the news article at the bottom of the slide, and this happened in Baltimore.

This is happening around the country.

Firefighters are losing their lives in these type of structures.

So we're trying to make it safer for the community, we're trying to make it safer for our first responders by putting forward this piece of legislation.

So that's very important.

These are the numbers that I mentioned earlier, and these are staggering numbers, in my opinion, because if we can prevent fires from happening, we should do that.

This is an attempt to do some of that with this legislation.

And this legislation has a lot of pieces to it.

It's not just one solution, there's a number of solutions.

But a lay of the land, SDCI, they're monitoring over 300 vacant buildings.

And it's important to note all vacant buildings are not in the bad space.

Most vacant buildings in the city are secured.

They're intact and all of those things like they should be.

Now, when we go to a response at one of these locations, then we start paying attention to it.

We have about 100 buildings in our system.

A firefighter will go on a response, a fire or medical call to a location.

They will scene survey, look around the scene, understand what's going on here.

They can clearly see if this building was boarded up and now it's unboarded and someone has accessed it.

and then they'll go back and they'll input that into one of our systems, so we start tracking it.

A member of our Fire Prevention Bureau will then go out and do an inspection on the property so we can get eyes on the property, and they would update any additional information.

Now, of that 100, there's a subset of 40 that have had at least one fire.

So that's a concern for us, because they have already had at least one fire in a building that's derelict.

And when I say derelict, that's very intentional, because the floors, walls, ceilings, entry points, exit points have been modified.

Now, of that 40 number, half of that number have had multiple fires, more than one.

When I was going through some of the numbers yesterday, I just put the address in our CAD system myself.

And I ran all 40 through.

One of those addresses had over 30 responses in the last two years and one quarter.

So if we can prevent the next one, if we can prevent the next fire, that's what we should be trying to do.

We tried to look at this in a few different ways and where these buildings are around the city.

And Dan Flores and our Fire Prevention Bureau created these maps, and this data is from the US Census Bureau.

And the first one is language diversity.

And the darker colors on the map are the more language-diverse neighborhoods in the community.

You can see on the map, and you see the bottom of the city that's around Rainier.

You can see all the red dots around downtown and West Seattle and University District.

We wanted to look at it another way based on income diversity and the darker the square or shade, the lower the income, but the higher, the more income.

So you can kind of see the lay of the land where these properties are that we are paying attention to.

Now, this is only our 40 approximately that we're paying attention to.

And you can see these maps were updated on April 16th.

So just last week.

And then we want to look at racial diversity to understand the impact in the neighborhoods that are our most racially diverse neighborhoods here in the community.

And we can see, you know, Beacon Hill, for example, and down Rainier, you can see there's a lot of dots in that area that we pay attention to.

So what does the ordinance do?

The ordinance amends the Seattle Fire Code, and it clarifies the fire chief's existing summary abatement authority.

That's pretty important because it wasn't as clear as we would like it to be, and that's what we're working to do.

And imminent danger to life and property, the fire chief already has the authority to take action directly to address the unsafe conditions.

But the ordinance clarifies that this includes demolition and adds the ability to pass the cost back to the property owner.

That's really important.

So if we have been trying to work with the property owner on securing the facility, repairing the facility, but not being able to move the needle, well, the abatement may need to be demolition of a property.

And we would need the resources to do that, but we would also need the tools to go and seek reimbursement.

So that's what this legislation does.

And then other unsafe buildings, not an imminent fire hazard, the fire chief already has the authority to require the building owner to fix or demolish.

this strengthens that authority, which is really what we need.

And I don't wanna leave you here today thinking that there's 40 buildings out there, that's a problem.

No, there's a small subset of that 40 that I believe are our most hazardous locations in the city that we should be trying to work through these problems with the property owner.

And if we can't gain compliance, we shouldn't leave these properties to be open, accessed, and our units responding to multiple fires in these locations, because as you have seen around the city, you can look at a large fire on Rainier in Genesee in December.

You can look at the fire at 823 Madison.

You could look at the fire last year.

It was one of our COVID testing sites on Aurora that we ran tens of thousands of people through at the old admission site testing them for COVID, but it was vacant.

We can go on and on and on, and we have to address these problems here in the community.

It's really important.

So that was our last slide.

I'll pause there and see if there's questions from the council.

Any questions starting now?

Vice Chair.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Chief Scoggins here for this helpful presentation.

Would love to hear directly from your perspective, Chief.

It sounds like the specific challenge that we're trying to address is the rise in vacant, derelict buildings and the coinciding increase in fires and serious injuries and puts the community at risk from a public safety standpoint, puts our fire heroes at risk.

So it sounds like, and it was helpful for me to see on that slide the kind of visual depiction over the last three or four years of exactly what that looks like.

And as you aptly noted, and indeed included on a few of those slides, there is existing legal authority and capability for the fire department through you, exercising your authority and power to intervene We'd love to hear directly from your perspective, Chief.

What is the specific, and I just kind of restated, but tell me, what is the specific problem that we're trying to solve and how is this proposed legislation intended to, like narrowly crafted to directly accomplish that?

Sure, the problem we are trying to solve is to reduce the number of derelict building fires in the community.

That's the problem we're trying to solve.

Last year, we had 130 fires in derelict buildings.

Last year, we had three fire deaths in the city in derelict buildings.

We're trying to solve that problem.

We're changing the language of the fire code to clarify the fire chief's authority to order up to abatement, which may mean demolition of a building.

And it also adds language that the city can now seek reimbursement, the direct cost of the cost of demolition up to placing a lien on the property.

So the problem we're trying to solve is reduce the number of fires in the community because that's better fire prevention.

And the legislation clarifies the fire chief's authority to do that and provides an avenue for the city to seek reimbursement of the cost of a possible demolition.

And it could mean, some of you may remember on Genesee after we had the big fire on Genesee, they put a fence up around the property, but eventually the fence was gone.

and all types of things were being added to the property and SDCI took actions on that and it took a couple of months for that to happen.

I don't think we would wait a couple of months.

Because if most communities have kids and kids like to play and kids like to go inside and explore, the last thing we want is any young people in our community saying, hey, let's go and check out that house.

It's been empty for a while, not realizing the hazards that are in that house.

They walk in, the floor has been punched, they fall through.

The walls have been punched.

It may seem fun at first, but quickly it becomes a very serious situation.

That's not what we want in the community.

So I hope I answered those questions.

Yeah, yeah, you did.

I have a two-part kind of follow-up question, and that was helpful.

I guess I would love to...

So part one in this next line of questioning is...

Why are you so convinced that, and I understand this is intended to be an additional tool in the broader toolkit.

We need a variety of tools to help solve complex challenges, regardless of whatever those challenges are.

So we'd love to hear from your perspective, Why is this additional capability, why do you believe it's going to help us achieve, better achieve rather, the desired outcome, part one?

And part two, how does this proposed approach compare to industry best practices in other jurisdictions, other major cities in particular?

Two questions.

So as a fire chief, it's my job to identify escalating hazards in the city.

We've done that with this problem right here.

We have a lot of tools in the toolbox already, but we're still watching the rise in these fires.

So clearly that says to me that we need to do something different to help solve the problem.

Do I think this one piece of legislation is going to solve all the problems?

No.

But will it give us another tool to solve some problems?

I believe it will, and we will use that tool.

That's really important to be grounded there.

Now, where are we at in industry best practices?

I communicate with Metro Chiefs all over the country, and we're all trying to figure this out.

We may be at the front of the line in creating a new best practice for the fire service, but I believe that this should probably happen in other major cities around the country.

because we are connected to the emergency, and it's really important to note that.

When someone calls 911 at 2 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the afternoon, we're connected to that location, the property, the location, the people.

Most people are disconnected.

You're seeing a citation, you're seeing an issue, you're having a meeting about it, but you're never on the ground at the site.

I go to a lot of these fires myself, so I'm on the ground at the site.

Last thing I would want is for any of our firefighters or a community member to be harmed when we could have taken a very intentional step to try to solve a problem.

Don't think it's gonna be the perfect answer, but it's a step in the right direction.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

And I just wanted to note Council Member Morales has joined us along with Council Member Rivera, which is an indication of the interest in this topic.

And before going to our next question, I would note the fact that you have great turnout today.

Your maps show this.

This is sitting all districts.

And thank you for including those different charts that you had and the different backgrounds to them.

It's very important.

With that, Council Member Moore.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chief Scroggins.

This is really a very important legislation.

And as you have noted, and I'm well aware, there are many of these vacant buildings in District 5 and Lake City.

And we've suffered from, our community has suffered from quite a few fires.

I did have a question, and I have several questions.

One is, do you have the statistics on the number of the vacant buildings that are owned by out of state individuals or corporations?

We don't have that statistic, but I have a great example for you.

You may remember the Seattle Times building several years back.

We had multiple extremely large fires in that building.

Now, I believe that property owner was an out-of-state, and I believe out-of-country owner.

It was very difficult to solve that problem, and it took a very long time.

And if you researched the news articles of that building, we had several multiple-alarm fires.

But we don't have the statistics specifically of who lives where that owns all of these properties.

Before continuing, I just wanted to highlight that, and it's important, not here, but online, is Ms. Hunter from SDCI.

Ms. Hunter, if you can jump in on any of these questions, particularly that one sounds like it more of an SDCI question.

If you have anything to add, please, you know, jump in or flag me with the Zoom.

If you have anything to add on that.

I just want to, plus I wanted the panelists, the council members to know that we do have an SDCI representative online with us today.

Council Member Moore.

Yeah, thank you.

Well, that might go to my next question, which is what appears to be the greatest obstacle to voluntary compliance?

Is there one?

There's many.

The big obstacle is getting the attention.

So I think that one thing that has been covered here is that hopefully this legislation will will get the attention of all property owners in the city.

When you talk about where the owners live, a lot of them are LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES.

THERE'S VERY A LOT OF WORK THAT GOES INTO TRACKING DOWN THE REGISTERED AGENT OF THESE PROPERTIES.

BUT IT'S REALLY THE COMMUNICATIONS, THE ONE THE CHIEF'S TALKING ABOUT.

OUR BIGGEST ROADBLOCK IS HOW MUCH TIME WILL GO BY WHEN WE DO HAVE THE REGISTERED AGENT.

WE DO SEND THE, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO COMPLY THROUGH THE MAIL IS JUST LAPHS OF TIME WHERE WE HEAR NOTHING BACK.

SO I'D SAY THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE.

So I'm looking at your slide where it says it takes up to a year really to get to the point where you can demolish.

And it appears that under this legislation, you would be able to expedite that process and address the imminent risk that these buildings are presenting to our community.

Yes, and there's two pathways here.

So one pathway is we are working with the property owner because we are seeing an uptick in fire and EMS responses at a location.

So we are working with the property owner to bring that building back into compliance and solve the problems.

So that's one.

The other one is the big fire has happened now.

And we need to deal with that immediately because as we had a fire in Lake City last year, one of the walls, the east wall, was potentially gonna collapse into Lake City Way.

And we were fortunate where we got the property owner on the phone, we got him on the site, I went out there myself, We worked with him to get a demolition contractor and we got the building down before the weekend is out.

That's not the norm in some of them.

But what this legislation would do is if that property owner didn't comply and we saw that as a public safety hazard because a wall was going to collapse into the public right away, this legislation would give us the ability to solve that problem.

Thank you.

Council President Nelson.

Thank you.

So I'm trying to understand something.

Last August, I believe, council passed a law that was executive generated that did three main things.

Require any building that receives a notice of violation to enter the vacant building monitoring program rather than just those buildings that failed to correct a notice of violation by the compliance deadline.

simplify the process for police and fire referrals to vacant building monitoring, and authorize the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections to file a property lien against the owner to collect unpaid vacant building monitoring fees and abatement costs.

And at the time, I made a bit of a stink about that.

ordinance because what I was hearing from property owners was three things.

Number one, our failure to address our homelessness issues was resulting in folks entering buildings.

And two, when they have complained to the police department about this and wanted to have people removed, our staffing levels were such that they couldn't get that attention or immediately when a building was being broken into again or re-entered, that was a problem.

There wasn't the ability to respond in the moment.

And then three, that owners had applied for a demolition permit, but it was really slow to be issued.

And that was the issue, I believe, with the Hillside Motel.

So I did vote for that.

And so my question for you is, how does this new ordinance interact with the provisions that were already passed?

Sure.

Two of those problems that you mentioned we're not gonna change that in the fire department.

But the third problem on the process for demolition, we work with SDCI daily.

All of that is still in play.

For most of these properties, wherever they are, I think what we're talking about here is the most extreme cases.

When I mentioned an address in the last two years and one quarter, we've responded there 30 times.

That's an extreme case for EMS calls and fire calls.

And if we determined by inspection that the floors, walls, ceilings, doors, they can't secure the property.

We've had multiple fires.

The property owner is not taking the proper steps.

then we have a new tool that we can help resolve the problem because the property owners have a responsibility to their neighbors too.

When you look at the fire at 823 Madison that happened on New Year's morning, and I went out to the fire, we evacuated pretty much the whole block on New Year's morning.

We evacuated the whole block because the fire spread to the building to the south.

So I get the concerns with homelessness.

I get the concerns with you can't get a police officer to trespass someone again and again and again.

But it doesn't change the responsibility of the current environment that we need to secure the structure.

And if we can't secure the structure, then we need to have other steps that we can take.

So I was in favor of that legislation also, and I was hopeful.

But what we see is the fires are still escalating.

So throughout the first three and a half months of this year, we've had about 30 fires.

derelict building fires.

So if you times that times four quarters, we're on track.

And that legislation first went forward, I believe in 2017 or 18, that set up the vacant building work group with SDCI.

We've been paying attention to it.

We're still trying to turn the wheel, but this will put the fire department in a different place by modifying the fire code.

Thank you for that answer.

I do want to respond to your very well-taken point that you're on the ground and you see what's going on.

And I was on the ground once when the Seven Gables Theater caught fire.

I believe it was on Christmas Eve in 2020, I think, right across the freeway, I saw the smoke.

My son and I went there.

He was thrilled to meet you, Chief, and also Kenny of Local 27. And Kenny explained to me how dangerous those buildings were, the impact, the chemicals that burn.

and the impact on health of firefighters, the water usage.

And he was saying, we've got to do something.

And I think that this is the something that will really make a difference.

So I am not expressing concern about this.

And I understand that neighbors across the city do want to see something more than what we have on the books right now.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Just, Chief, quickly, I want to make sure that I'm understanding correctly what you're saying, and that is that this is actually the last resort, that you will continue to do all the mitigation that you do leading up to something like this.

It's not going to be taken lightly by the...

your team but that at that there are some properties at this Juncture, it's about 40 but could be higher later That need that that that there are an extreme case and you need to have the tool in place to be able to do something about it yes, that is correct and all along the way we are going to be partnered with the mayor and

keeping everybody informed of what's going on so nothing is lost, and we'll keep Councilmember Kettle informed so there's transparency here.

And we made this so restrictive that the fire chief or the fire marshal can make this decision.

And that's it.

The fire chief or the fire marshal.

That's really important to note.

That's how serious this is.

We go out to a lot of fires.

And if we can solve some of these, we're doing the right thing for the community.

Thank you, Chief.

Council Member Morales.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks for allowing me to be here.

Good morning.

We're still in the morning.

Sorry, I was late.

I had a meeting go long.

I want to thank all of you for being here.

Council Member Kettle and I have been working on this with you, Chief, and with the City Attorney's Office for some time.

I want to get back to the point you made about the two tracks you have, right?

One is to work with property owners to try to bring their buildings into compliance I know we've all had buildings in our districts that just stay vacant for a long time and there's no issue.

The problem is when there is an issue and these buildings are unsecured, repeatedly creating violations, sending you out, sending emergency vehicles out, In my experience, we had one of these buildings, the Jumbo Lot, Rainier and Genesee.

That building was vacant for years, and people broke in.

That building was unsecured.

We worked with SDCI for months and months to try to get the building secured.

There was finally a fire.

as we learned, not caused by homeless people, but caused by somebody, you know, people entering the building and starting a fire.

And then the fire sat there, the rubble of the fire sat there for months.

And we, again, worked with STCI, we're working for a long time to try to get that cleaned up.

And I think that is the issue, right?

It's not just trying to get the property owner to comply with securing the building.

It's also that if there is a fire, getting them to comply with cleaning it up because that rubble is also dangerous.

You know the the building wasn't secured.

There was no fence around it or the fence was broken into And then people start to come to that side and dump their own things there because they see that the rubble is just sitting there Nobody's cleaning it up.

We'll just contribute to it.

So that creates blight it creates a problem for neighbors It creates frustration with neighboring businesses so I think this is It is a necessary tool.

I'm sorry that there are places that get to this point, but it is an important tool for us to provide so that we can keep our city workers safe, we can keep the general public safe, and we can make sure that we are not contributing to the blight that is happening in our neighborhoods and really commit to our neighbors that we are investing in their safety and the well-being of the community members too.

I'm glad that we have this legislation.

Thank the mayor for getting this drafted.

I will be co-sponsoring this with Council Member Kettle and really look forward to making sure that we keep our neighbors safe.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Before going to Vice Chair, I see Ms. Hunter from SDCI.

Would you like to add to the conversation, please?

Go ahead.

I would.

Thank you.

Can you hear me okay?

Yes, I can.

Go ahead, please.

All right.

Thank you, Council Members, for having all of us.

I apologize that I can't be with you in person.

They're at the table with my colleagues at the Fire Department, who certainly are our partners in arms at SDCI.

As they've said, we work together so very closely, and we're so appreciative for the work that they're doing on this legislation and every day.

So thank you, Chiefs, at the table there.

and all of the ones that I can't see and all of the people on the ground.

So that I just want to say first.

And second to your staff is my staff, who's also on the ground.

They're not first responders, but they get put in very similar situations quite often.

they take huge huge risk huge risk these inspectors so thank you to them and i just want to say that the sdci is a hundred percent supportive of this legislation we will do everything we can to help the fire department get rid of the buildings that are posing these risks to our community and i i also want to thank you council member morales for bringing up the jumbo It is such a perfect example of all of the problems with vacant building sites.

Frankly, that was a new one on us.

We didn't foresee that they would just leave it there for months and we did not have tools in place for that situation.

So we have to start planning and thinking about the situation now in 2024 which as the fire chief pointed out, it's not the same as it was pre-pandemic.

So thank you all for your support and I hope that this helps us with a new tool.

Okay.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Final question I have on this topic, I would just be curious personally to learn a little bit more about the mechanisms that we have to compel uh payment and like recovery specifically and i don't know chief if this is a question better suited for you or maybe it's our own central staff experts and or maybe sdci but so under this proposed legislation You know, this kind of high-level construct shows up in multiple areas, essentially that, you know, the cost of abatement can be recovered from the responsible owner in any manner provided by law.

It says, it goes on to say, including through a special assessment.

And so my reading of that proposal, including is not necessarily intended to be...

like capture everything.

So, you know, it contemplates a property lien and file with the King County recorder.

What other, or maybe it is, I don't know, maybe that is intended to be the only way we can go after and make sure we get recovered directly from the culpable property owners and make this right, so to speak.

What are the mechanisms, the specific mechanisms that we have to to get it to be made whole in this financially as a city and to enforce this?

Is it solely just this special assessment property lien power or what other ways can we potentially get, you know, compel enforcement.

Sure.

I'll start and then I'll pass it.

But as the legislation says, we will build a property owner and seek full cost recovery.

And if that doesn't work out, the RCW gives us the ability to place a lien on the property to seek full cost recovery.

Our goal is to make the city whole.

It's not our goal that this is a a venture where the city is losing funds.

We're trying to solve public safety issues in the community.

And that's what we're trying to do.

And we're going to seek full cost recovery.

Hopefully the property owner says, great chief, how much did it cost?

Let me cut your check.

That'd be great.

But if that's not the case, then we have the ability to place a lien on the property.

Did I cover that correctly?

Yeah.

I think that the important part of like I would just add to that.

I think it was mentioned that there are different avenues.

Right now in the Seattle fire code we have the ability to impose what we call penalties which are $1,000 a day for a violation.

What we are really talking about here is we have the summary abatement which is the We have inspections that take place that we bill for.

We have the ability, as I said, once they get to a certain point to inspections, we start to refer it to law.

That $1,000 a day kicks in.

So that's how they add up what we're going to get back.

It'd be similar for this.

If for your summary abatement, that same $1,000 a day could apply.

It also, as the chief spoke to, you know, hiring the contractors, there's going to be a contract rate for that.

There'll be a bill for that.

So we'll be able to tally that up.

And as the legislation that you just read states that we can recover the cost plus the administrative fees.

And so we have other avenues to recover them.

It's just going to be based on the project.

Thank you.

Council Member Rivera, another question?

Just my last question is, do we think that by doing this, will it serve as a deterrent also?

Because right now my sense is that imposing the fines isn't really...

compelling the property owners to actually do something.

And if we have this last resort piece and folks know that, hey, you really need to resolve this or there will eventually lead to something more serious for the protection of the public, for the public safety piece, that perhaps it will deter folks from not complying.

So, yes, it is our hope that that this legislation will help property owners come into compliance.

But we're realists also, because we have been managing this challenge for quite a while, and we do have some properties that we just don't hear from.

So it's our hope that this legislation can bring compliance, but if it doesn't, we now have the ability to solve a problem.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

I have some questions.

And again, thank you, Chief, and your team and those in the audience for joining us.

Also for Ms. Hunter and SDCI, I will have to say that I do have direct experience with this issue.

the hillside on Aurora, just off of the Aurora Bridge.

I've been working that for such a long time as a community member with the previous mayor, the previous city attorney, and the previous council.

It was a building...

The main structure, multi-storied, where there was a major fire, two desks.

And there was a lower structure, motel-like structure, where the fire department was called out God knows how many times, countless times for ODs.

The manager of the facility died from an OD.

It became the hillside criminal storefront with the drug market.

And as you know, anytime you have a drug market, next thing you know, you have a stolen goods market.

The prostitution, the sex trafficking that was happening at that location.

So the frustration, like from the council president's question, frankly, was a motivation in part for me to be currently sitting in this position as chair of the Public Safety Committee.

And these are the things that need to be addressed.

And each location has its own unique circumstances.

In the case of the Hillside, after the major fire, once the insurance piece was paid out, the owner skipped town, laying it into the hands of the financiers, which is another level of engagement, never mind the government engagement, but also on the owner's side.

And to their credit, it was challenging at times, but to their credit, it has just been demolished.

And they did a nice abatement of it too, if you've been to the location.

So this really informs my view on this topic and I've seen in other areas of the city too.

So this is direct experience.

So thank you and the team and us as a collaborative effort, as council member Morales noted, it's been a combination of the executive, the legislative and the judicial with the city attorney's office.

I have read through the background material.

I've read the ordinance.

I think it reads well.

Two points that I like the point that you regarding trespass or compromising the building structures, changing its characteristics, which really changes the dynamics when the firefighters are there.

They may have an assumption based on what they're seeing, but what they're seeing may not be what their training tells them it is.

And so that is so important to the point that last thing we want to do in addition to losing members of the public is to lose a firefighter.

So that is so important.

The other point, too, in terms of reading the ordinance itself, and I understand the paragraph, you know, talking about, you know, the circumstances, it's become more frequent because of synthetic narcotics, including fentanyl and meth.

in recent years, it's almost a little bit of an incomplete thought there.

And the point that I'd like to add, because you spoke to it, you know, if you have the math and so forth, next thing you know, you have labs.

Next thing you know, you have fires.

And that's where everything comes together.

And so I just wanted to highlight that in terms of that paragraph.

in terms of the ordinance itself, that might be an area where we can complete the thought in terms of the final addition.

Questions that I have, one, and this goes to a lot of things that I've been seeing, and this is true, this is good governance, due diligence.

Can you speak to the protocols between the fire department, SDCI, the city attorney's office, in terms of the, you know, to ensure, you know, the civil liberties piece, the property owner's piece of this is covered?

Sure.

So there are a number of ongoing conversations that take place with everyone you just mentioned there.

So there's a vacant building work group that's led by Faith Lundenson.

That's a really large group.

And my folks in the fire department attend that along with many others looking at the bigger problem in the city.

The mayor and deputy mayor Burgess set up a smaller group earlier this year with city attorney's office, with SPD, with fire and SDCI to continue to work the problem.

And our fire marshal and SDCI and the attorneys have a number of ongoing conversations to continue to work the problem.

So we're connected on this issue.

And in multiple places, there's multiple conversations that are taking place.

Everyone's working really hard to solve the problem.

You know, I'll have conversations with Scott Lindsey on the issue.

I've had conversations with our city attorney, Ann Davidson, on this issue.

So I want to assure you that everyone is having very open and consistent conversations on this issue.

Thank you.

I noted the charts, the varying, you know, in terms of social, economic, language, race, and those are great to have as part of that.

My question is, you know, again, going to the civil liberties piece, is the transparency of the process and highlighting to these communities.

I mean, you have the district representatives here, which is very important to have this engagement and understanding, but for the community, will there be some type of...

or something that can be publicly available so the people can see, yes, you know, I've been wondering about this property down the street.

And they can see it on some type of listing and to one degree or another.

So they know that, yes, the city government is aware of it and they're working it and they're not being forgotten.

One thing I hear again and again from the various communities around the city is in terms of public safety is like, nobody's listening to us.

And even when in cases like in Queen Anne, which is very different, I understand the privilege and the abilities that we had.

We were screaming on the hillside and was still kind of a problematic.

So I can just imagine some of these communities as represented in the charts.

Is there a way to kind of increase the transparency so people can see these pieces on a kind of, not necessarily real time, but on a frequent basis?

So a couple of things.

One, I would encourage any member of the community, if you have one of these structures in your district, call our Fire Prevention Bureau to make sure that we have it in our system so we can track it.

So that's number one.

Number two, the second part becomes a little more challenging because Once we start the steps in taking an action, we're working with the attorney's office, and it may be covered by attorney-client privilege, so that would limit what we can share public until we can resolve the issue.

So a dashboard becomes a little bit more challenging.

The dashboard that we had in the presentation, that's real-time, that's internal.

Some of those properties...

we're working through, but they're dots on the map.

They're not an exact address.

But I would encourage any member of the community to contact our Fire Prevention Bureau and make sure we have what you're seeing.

We think we do.

In our 33 fire stations, we're out in the community on responses over 300 times every single day, and our firefighters are very observant, and they come back and enter the information into our systems.

Thank you.

Last question is, as we said, we've been working this through the different areas of government, local government, and this is a preintroduction because of the timing of receiving it, I couldn't get into the calendar.

So you have that on one side, but it's emergency legislation, which is a little bit of a disconnect.

What are we looking to achieve with the emergency declaration piece of this ordinance in terms of, you know, what does this kickstart, what does this allow for you to do if it's as an emergency versus a standard legislation?

Well, the emergency legislation reduces the timeline for implementation of the legislation once it's passed from 30 days to the day it's signed.

So do we have properties in the city that we would work to address the day the legislation goes into play?

Yes.

So it cuts the timeline down.

What we're also doing is we're working through the process of getting contractors on retainer.

So if we get to the end of the road, we can't work with the property owner, the hazard still exists.

We still have to solve the problem.

So we'll have the ability to do that.

So I hope that answers your question there.

Thank you.

It does.

BEFORE MOVING TO MS. GORMAN'S PRESENTATION, I SEE MS. HUNTER, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT, PLEASE?

I DO.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER KETTLE.

I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO, FIRST OF ALL, YOUR SHARED FRUSTRATION OF THE HILLSIDE AND THAT JUST LIKE THE JUMBO HAS MANY, MANY COMPONENTS THAT ARE GREAT EXAMPLES.

BUT I WANTED TO SAY THAT ALSO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT CIVIL LIBERTIES OF THE OWNERS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS.

And that is part of why we don't release the vacant building list to the public.

to protect them, to protect us, to let us work together to try to see if we can fix the problem.

But I also want to say so that everyone understands it's also a safety concern for those buildings and the public to give a list to the public of sites that are unattended and could be used for, you know, ill purposes.

So I just wanted to say that.

Thank you.

I appreciate that balancing point.

Part of that question is to raise the issue and so that we're working through the different elements of it.

So thank you for that point.

Vice Chair?

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, so I think this is a, I wanna emphasize your comment about the need really to be, or the opportunity I think we have as a city to be a little more transparent, you know, about this and the whole process and understanding the competing demands and priorities, whether it's attorney-client privilege information or, you know, as we just heard from SDI or SDCI rather, you know, some of those concerns about, you know, it doesn't always make sense to list or share a detailed list But I am a strong proponent of transparency.

And I do think and I know that the mayor has this really innovative open data initiative.

And I think there is a way to do it.

where we sanitize certain key information and maybe we don't have like a map as part of the dashboard, but I think it would make sense.

And I would strongly encourage the fire department working in partnership with SDCI and the mayor's office to consider implementing a dashboard that has some transparency, that has appropriate level of kind of anonymization, but still, you know, furthers, like, just broader transparency goals to the general public, because this is really important stuff.

We need to monitor and track, and how the heck are we going to, you know, make progress on any goal if we don't have a baseline, and there's, you know, like, sure, individually we can, work with you all to understand where are the specific concerns, some of these things that are generally less applicable.

Most of it is, unless there's an exception, is publicly available information, right?

And so the question is, do you want to make it easy and accessible for people by proactively going and putting it on a dashboard or something?

Or do you want to make it more difficult and getting reporters and people with expertise and time involved?

And I think the former is preferred.

So again, would strongly encourage you all to work together to figure out how we can create a dashboard to create to proactively update.

It doesn't need to be real time, but regularly update so the public has access to this really, really critically important information.

Thank you.

And Council Member Saka, if you don't know me very well, you probably will learn I love a good dashboard.

So we will take that back as an action item and we will see what we can come up with.

Thank you.

Chief, if you couldn't, your team could hold, I'd just like to have, normally we start with central staff, but as a summary with Ms. Gorman, just to have a summary of where we are and and then I'll closing remarks after that.

Yeah.

Thank you, Chair Kettle.

Good morning, committee members, Council Member Morales, Council Member Rivera, and Gorman Council Central staff.

I'm here with an analytical overview of this bill.

In some cases, I'll have some of the same information that the SFD team already presented.

Apologies for any repetition, but it is to the good when we are saying and emphasizing the same things.

Brent, next slide, please.

The subject of this bill is unsafe building abatement.

And just to be clear about this term, abatement refers to the restoration to safe condition of something that is unsafe.

This can be as simple as removing a pile of debris that is a fire hazard or as dramatic as the demolition of a building.

In that case, the abatement refers to the dangerous building being gone, but the property itself being restored to safe condition.

One of the recitals of this ordinance narrows in a little further to buildings that are vacant and derelict, unsafe, or a public nuisance.

Derelict is not described in the Seattle Municipal Code.

It's kind of, you know it when you see it.

It is an extremely poor and deteriorating condition.

Unsafe can refer either to structural integrity that is at issue or to the activities that are taking place at a given site.

And public nuisance, we'll talk a little bit more on the next slide.

The bill includes a definition of public nuisance.

that is proposed to be added to the Seattle Fire Code.

As Chief Scoggins explained, there are currently over 100 buildings in the city that meet this definition and are being tracked by the fire department, and over 40 are both vacant and unsafe.

Some context for the status quo with respect to these buildings.

SDCI administers the City Vacant Building Monitoring Program.

There are currently about 300 buildings being tracked through that program.

This program was started in 2019 and it was strengthened late last year, partly in response to the acknowledged public safety risks that vacant buildings pose to people living in the neighborhoods.

From 2021 to 2022, SDCI noted a 40% increase in the number of vacant and unsecured buildings.

SDCI has the ability to declare a building unfit for inhabitation or other use and can require the owner to repair or demolish the building.

And SFD can currently issue orders to remove or remedy dangerous conditions related to a building.

Fire department can also refer a building to SDCI, which can declare it unfit.

That declaration may lead to its demolishment.

Next slide.

This bill proposes new authority for the fire code official.

The fire code official is how this person is described in the bill.

I'll talk a little bit more about that.

Essentially, this bill would put SFD more securely in the driver's seat with respect to these buildings.

It would give the fire code official the ability to declare a building a public nuisance.

And it would add to the Seattle fire code this definition of public nuisance.

Public nuisance is a nuisance which affects equally the rights of an entire community or neighborhood.

though the extent of the damage may be unequal." And this definition is borrowed from the Revised Code of Washington, and what's important about using it is that it connects to lien authority. A lien, less for council members than for anybody who might be watching, is a claim of one party against another party's property, usually secured by a debt. And what this, the executive acknowledges that in terms of collecting the costs of abating costs associated with one of these buildings, the city might not be able to collect those costs right away as we have heard. So this provides a mechanism for the city to collect those costs in the future. A difference between abatement and summary abatement. Abatement occurs after a notification and a period during which an owner, a property owner, can come into compliance. SFD can give that notice, provide the compliance date, And when compliance is not occurring, the fire code official would have the ability to abate the problem and recover the costs of abatement. Chief Scoggins talked about the Seattle fire chief. Absolutely true. The fire chief could be a fire code official. This could also be the Seattle fire marshal or the designee of the fire marshal. And typically in the case of abatement, it will be one of those people invoking the authority. Summary abatement is different. Summary abatement would occur when conditions pose an imminent danger to life and property. In that case, the fire code official can declare the building a public nuisance, abate the conditions summarily, up to and including demolition, and recover the costs of summary abatement. Summary in this context, summarily just means immediately. Summary abatement, immediate abatement on the spot. And this authority would typically be invoked at the scene of a fire or a building collapse while SFD still is in control of the response of the scene. And in this case, it could be the incident commander, typically a battalion chief who is invoking the authority. Next slide, please. One important note about this bill is that it is emergency legislation with an immediate effective date. As we discussed, the bill would have immediate effect, and the city charter requires the inclusion of emergency findings in the bill. when it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety. The bill finding does include an emergency finding. It is in compliance with the city charter. And to become effective, the bill will require a three-quarter majority of council votes. Next steps with respect to this bill. First step is for it to be introduced. It will be introduced and public safety committee members will discuss it and possibly vote on it at the next scheduled meeting, which will be held on May 14th. Any amendments that council members want to bring forward could also be discussed and voted on at that time. We'll also be preparing a central staff memo with a much more complete analysis of the bill. It will be available prior to that meeting. Also, if any council members want to talk about the bill, scope possible amendments, my colleague Tommaso Johnson and I will be available in the intervening weeks to have that conversation. Assuming that the bill passes, the fire department, SDCI, the mayor's office, and city attorney's office will be developing and implementing protocols for summary abatement. There's a lot involved with getting this right and all of these bodies will be involved in that process. So we don't yet have a timeline about when those protocols will be available. Until they have been formally signed off on, action taking place under the authority granted by this bill will be regular abatement rather than summary abatement. Again, assuming that the bill passes, the executive will refine cost assumptions for this year. Funding for 2024 will be included in the mid-year supplemental ordinance and ongoing costs will be included in the proposed budget, which council members will receive this September. The legislation was transmitted with a fiscal note. The fiscal note estimates 2024 costs associated with this bill at between $350,000 and $500,000. This is a high-level estimate. There's a lot of different factors that go into the cost for any one abatement. But just conceptually, that cost range assumes three demolitions of residential properties and one demolition of a commercial property. We understand this is early stages for any costing associated with the bill. and appreciate the executive's candor in terms of the wide range and the possibility that it may change. And just an obligatory note, any new costs included with the 2024 budget and subsequent budgets will increase the projected general fund budget deficit, which is currently estimated around $240 million for 2025. Any questions?

Any questions?

Okay.

Vice Chair?

No, no, no.

Go ahead.

Why two-thirds?

Is that because it's emergency or because there is a potential?

Okay.

Yes, this is per the city charter.

All right.

Thank you.

Vice Chair.

So, as written, this proposed legislation...

Okay, I would just love to learn a little bit more about the invoking authority here.

So, as written under this proposed legislation, it says fire chief and...

or fire code official, FCO, and I heard the chief a moment ago indicate that their interpretation and their operalization of this thing would be the fire marshal, but as written, irrespective of that, because that can change at any time, but as currently written, what is the fire code official, like exactly one and then two, like what are some of the scope of possible people within the fire department that could specifically invoke this, any of these provisions?

Because in my mind, there's a difference between invoking authority, excuse me, invoking authority, someone who can invoke this and trigger like all the impact up to and including seeking like, recovery and liens and all that thing, versus someone who is acting pursuant to an authority that was already invoked.

But as written, who are the fire code officials and then what are some of the categories of people within the fire department that could do that?

I think I'll let SFD handle this one.

The bill language itself says fire code official.

What is that intended to mean?

So I'll take that.

So the fire chief or the fire code official?

Our fire marshal is the fire code official.

That's Assistant Chief Tim Muniz.

So the fire code official, is that a statutory construct that exists that is commonly known?

Maybe you might need to...

potentially take this offline with our legal team.

But I mean, I think this is an important distinction because you chief are interpreting this be like, that is only the fire marshal, but you know, who knows?

This is intended to be a long-term durable thing.

So in any event.

I think we can answer, go ahead, Karen.

I'd be happy to answer, Councilmember, and the fire code official is a term that comes to us from the International Fire Code.

It's mirrored in the building code with the building code official.

And for the City of Seattle, Chief Munice is our fire code official and Ardell Jala is our building code official.

So those terms do come to us from the code that's in effect throughout the country.

And then what Chief Scoggins has determined in conversations together with the council and the mayor is to use his existing process.

When he is on the scene, he already does call, I believe yourself for items in your district.

Council member Kettle receives a call for significant fires, the deputy mayor does, and he will be the one at this time making those determinations in communication as well with others.

And that's our plan for how this goes forward.

Circling back to your initial question, the language in the ordinance is actually mirrored in the international fire code as to which positions are identified.

So fire code official under the common understanding in international fire code, whatever the source, it's interpreted to mean fire marshal.

Am I hearing that correctly?

But I heard, I forget who, but discussion of it could potentially be invoked by others that don't necessarily include you, but potentially by people further down the chain of command.

Yes, what you heard was Ann Gorman mentioned that a battalion chief or an incident commander could trigger the summary abatement portion.

That won't happen in the fire department.

It won't happen as long as you're in charge.

That's great to know.

But again, these laws and legislations are intended to be durable and survive.

And I'm glad you have that policy in place.

But policy, like what's higher than a policy is legislation.

So thank you.

Council Member Saka, if I may, we can make sure in the staff memo to discuss SFD's plans to operationalize this legislation.

That would be an important part of, you know, something that I would consider.

Not the only, but thank you.

Council Member Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Just in terms of the cost estimates, I heard you say it was estimated based on three residential and one commercial, and I'm wondering why more residential than commercial.

Are these properties, like let's say the 40, is it that there's more residential of these properties than there are commercial?

Yes.

Thank you, Chief.

You're nodding yes.

Yes, there's more residential properties on our list.

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

And just to give you perspective, we learned about the cost of demolition.

It could be between $10 to $20 a square foot for a residential property and $15 to $30 a square foot for a commercial property because they're just built differently.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, Council Member Rivera.

Any other questions?

Council President.

Comment, just a comment only.

I just wanted to personally thank you, Chair, because I know that you've been working on this for a long time and I'm glad that you've worked together with the executive and also the city attorney on this.

And so I just want to say it's good to see this come forward.

And I do believe that we should plan for more than the amounts that you mentioned.

And just to be safe, to plan on it taking a really long time to be reimbursed.

So this is a public safety expense.

Anyway, thank you for presenting.

Okay.

Well, again, thank you very much.

I appreciate the briefings and such because, you know, I talked about in my question the due diligence, working the protocols piece between SFD, SDCI, and the city attorney's office.

But we also have, as our, you know, duties here, the due diligence to ask those questions and get the clarifications in terms of, like, what a fire code official is, and so forth.

And do it in a public way so then the public knows, and to include reporters that may be present.

And, you know, so it's an important piece.

And so thank you very much, all of you, for the opportunity to address what I see as an important pillar in our strategic framework plan.

Vacant buildings, and specifically dangerous vacant buildings, are a public safety threat.

This is not about eyesores.

This is about public safety threats.

It is vital to ensure that the city, that we do do the due diligence in the review of the buildings and properties.

And yes, we need to have a strong partnership between SFDA, SDCI and city attorney's office with good oversight.

from the mayor's office and for us on the legislative side to ensure the T's have been crossed and the I's have been dotted on this because this is an important business, you know, in terms of somebody's property, the civil liberty side of things, so it's important for us to do this.

Though at the end of the day, it's about us addressing the vacant buildings and the lots, which will aid in our efforts to reduce the permissiveness in our city, as I mentioned, to underline a lot of our public safety threats.

And it's also another step forward in our plan to create a safe base in our city.

That's our mission, to create a safe base in our city.

So thank you for your work.

And I should add a more general thank you, Chief, to the men and women of the Seattle Fire Department.

And thank you for yours and all of their service.

I had a great appreciation, I heard, along with Council Member Rivera at last week's awards luncheon, Very inspirational and incredible work that the fire departments do and those that were highlighted for their service.

Please pass the thank you to theirs, their work, and really appreciate it.

you know, these are the things that I learned in my many discussions that was a saying.

And I should highlight, too, you know, in terms of the firefighters, but also since you mentioned Local 27, you know, the labor side of this, too.

I think that's important.

You know, those voices are heard and are appreciated.

So thank you very much.

Again, thank you for your service.

Thank you.

I think we have reached the end of today's meeting agenda.

And if there's Is there any further business to come before the committee before we adjourn?

Hearing no further business before the committee, we are adjourned.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.