Seattle Covered Moorage Issues: Sprinklers - Draft Curtains - Heat Vents?

Seattle Fire Department has finally recognized the benefits of Aluminum Roofs in Marinas.

Salmon Bay Marina, in July of 2008, received from the City of Seattle fire department conformation to eliminate the need for heat vents and draft curtains at their marina. In the words of the SFD, they concurred with our "proposal to accept the aluminum roofs as a "melt-out roof" in their present condition with the louvers to remain, in lieu of installing listed roof vents and draft curtains is approved for the aluminum roofs only". This is a terrific step forward for the Covered Marina industry. Although the City of Seattle still requires heat vents and draft curtains for some construction, Aluminum roofs are now accepted by the City in lue of the forced direction originally taken. The efforts of Mr. Rich Schulte (our fire consultant) to bring forth the issues, and the hearings at the International building code meeting in Palm Springs which brought to light that there was no proof of Heat vents and draft curtains having a significant effect beyond the advantages of aluminum roof marinas in the event of a fire. The City of Seattle has decided to pull back a little bit from their original direction. We still have issues of what to do about changing dry standpipe sizes however it is wonderful to recognize that the city, after three years and tens of thousands of dollars of consulting fees, have accepted what the pictures showed. Aluminum roofs melt away if there is a fire beneath them. There still exists a burden of millions of dollars to comply with Chapter 94, but it is not as high as it used to be.

Costs estimates to comply with Mayor Nickels New Fire Code modification:

In September of 2007, a independent design Company, Design Plus Inc., reviewed the current requirements passed by Seattle's Mayor and its City Council. The requirements will no doubt need to be modified. The new code does have within it a section that allows modification if the code proves to be financially unfeasible or if other alternatives to the code are accepted. Salmon Bay Marina contracted Design Plus to make the financial estimate evaluation. The result was significantly higher than the original city estimate of a few hundred thousand dollars. A staggering $2,913,116 in 2007 dollars was estimated to comply with the way the City has framed the new law. Obviously the City needs to rethink their New Code.

News Release:
Monday April 18, 2005 - Mayor Nickels of Seattle

Eleven Students from Seattle Public Schools - Madison Secondary school 7th and 8th Graders - were able to ask Mayor Nickels questions.

One student asked:

"My Dad is teaching me about the law of diminishing return.

My dad runs a boat marina and I guess the City of Seattle is going to force him to make fire improvements to the roofs of the marina.

We don't have the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are needed for the roof improvements. My dad said he will have to charge the tenants extra by raising the rent.

The city estimates an increase of $84 per month to each boat for the next 8 years. But everything must be completed in seven years.

If my dad increases the rents then he will lose tenants and the rent increase will have to be even higher which means he will lose more tenants which means he will again have to raise the rent higher. It's kind of a circle.

What can the city do to help eliminate the loss of tenants and homes for the live-aboard people for the next seven years?"

After appearing flustered, Mayor Nickels response was the City had already reduced the cost and that there was nothing he could do. He then asked "Next Question."

Jobs and Boaters in Seattle, A thing of the past

April 17, 2005

Honorable Greg Nickels
PO Box 94749
Seattle, WA 98124-4749

Re: Covered Moorage Fire Protection Code 94 revisions have flaws within its framework. Implementation, annual maintenance fees, and loss of moorage tenants will eliminate jobs and drive boaters away from Seattle.

Dear Mayor Nickels

Several issues still exist concerning the proposed Fire Code change. The City Council recently passed an ordinance that directly affects Covered Moorages, their tenants and Seattle's boating enthusiasts. With the passage of the ordinance it is reasonable for the City to be willing to help financially or legislatively toward the very costly goal of the mandated investment. Those methods should be included within the ordinance thereby allowing the marinas to plan for how their businesses will survive.

The help can be accomplished using many different methods.

The analysis made by the Fire Marshall's office whereby they estimated an increase of $84.00/slip/month increase will drive tenants from our moorages and away from Seattle. Losing tenants will not allow the moorages to receive the budgeted amount of dollars necessary to make the mandatory improvements in the specified ordinance time frame The City has not provided enough time or consideration toward finding cost effective fire prevention alternative measures that can be implemented.

An analogy is: the city is saying to the covered marinas and boating community "we will kick you in the shins or step on your foot. Which do you prefer?" Rather than providing time to address how we can arrive at a solution that is not painful and will not detrimentally affect Seattle's boating community.

The cost of maintaining the "smoke tight" curtains in accordance with the proposed ordinance will be in excess of $52,000/ year and potentially monthly due to the structural nature of the moorages.

I attended the City Council hearing whereby the City Council voted to accept the proposed Seattle Fire Marshall's proposal revising Code 94. The premise of passage is that the City of Seattle wishes to eliminate catastrophic fires within covered marinas. The fire marshals plan is flawed because other economical alternatives or methods must be found before the covered marinas are driven out of business. An error in judgment exists with the marinas who indicated to the Fire Marshall's office that increasing the moorage rates enough to install heat vents and draft curtains was not a problem. Marinas did not anticipate the IRS taxable income issues. April 15 (IRS Deadline) has brought this issue to the top.

1. The City ordinance evaluation does not consider the 35% IRS taxes on profit.
I recently reviewed the city proposal with our accountants Peterson Sullivan PLLC. They indicated that setting up any type of reserve account for the mandatory investment being demanded by the City of Seattle would result in a taxable event. Any money we receive from tenant rents that will eventually be applied toward the improvements are taxable at 35%. This means that if we are successful in keeping moorages full (which will not happen because we are already loosing tenants due to the ordinance passing the City Council), then we must add 35% on top of the initial investment in order to break even. Further, the improvements being placed into the marina would be depreciated over 39 years unless they are considered repairs. If the Fire Marshall's estimate increase was $84.00/boat/month then the actual break-even amount would be $84/.65 = $129.23 increase/month. A 30-foot boat currently pays $300/month. Boaters cannot afford this type of rate increase on their "discretionary income" that is being used for boating.

2. The City of Seattle must realize that some requirements within the proposed ordinance are not maintainable and therefore should not be included within the ordinance. This is the case when requiring "smoke tight" seams of the draft curtains against the marina roofs.

The ordinance requires all draft curtains be smoke tight. This is not effective. If heat vents are doing their job and open at the appropriate low temperature, then smoke tight seams will not be necessary. (Remember covered boat moorages are open on at least two sides.)
The construction for each of the different marina roofs does not easily adapt to smoke tight seams. Marina roof structures are constructed differently. Some have solid roofs using wood decking, while others like ours has aluminum sheeting for the roof structure. Our purlins (roof supports) are spaced at 22 inches and are 8 inches deep. The curved surfaces of aluminum roof membrane changes shape when the sun strikes it. Miles of tape or caulking will be necessary to make the draft curtain walls smoke tight against the roof. The cost of labor alone will be extraordinary because workers will have to erect scaffolding over water in order to install each inch-by-inch piece of tape or caulking. After the tape or caulking is installed it will not hold because the docks are a dynamic structures i.e. the docks being constructed on long piling, continue to move due to wave action. In addition aluminum roof materials expand and contract at different rates compared to newly installed heat vents and wooden purlins. The caulk or tape will not expand and move at the same rate as the rest of the structure. The movement action will break the "seals" over a short period of time thereby rendering the smoke tight effectiveness irrelevant. The most flexible fire retardant sealant I have found can handle 25% deflection based on a 1/2-inch bead. This is 1/8-inch tolerance. Our docks will move more than ½ inch when just waves strike the breakwater, and this does not include the expansion and contraction of the materials due to heat change. We are continually on the top of the roofs caulking where the roof fasteners protrude through the aluminum to the purlins because of the expansion and contraction of the aluminum roofs. These fastener repairs are minuscule compared to the miles of an under roof caulking maintenance nightmare. To maintain the caulking for the draft curtains is calculated at $52,971 under today's labor rates and discounted fire retardant caulking compound prices. This assumes having to caulk only once per year. In reality, $52,971 monthly caulking cost of all the docks will be necessary if the requirements of the ordinance is adopted. If the requirements do not need to be adhered to or are ineffective then why have them?
I recommend changing the wording to reflect that draft curtains need not be smoke tight against the roof if the moorage roofs may move due to temperature expansion / contraction or the structural dynamics of the marina causes roof movement.

3. The City of Seattle will be causing a 20 to 50% vacancy in covered marinas if the mandate of hundred of thousands of dollars investment is required on covered moorages.

In March 2002 Salmon Bay Marina had an incremental rate increase averaging $.0.43 per foot for covered moorage ($15.05/slip average-revised). Our average covered boat slip is 34.8 feet (revised). Our marina went 23 % vacant. Three years later we are now almost full. We anticipate another rate increase in the near future because of recent electrical upgrades. With the electrical upgrades the tenants are receiving a benefit. They will have additional electrical power available. No benefit will be realized by tenants at our marina for the mandated $300,000 heat vent investment being required by the City of Seattle because in the event of a fire, our aluminum roofs will melt away and take the place of heat vents. This has already been proven at our covered marina because we have had two boat fires in the past and no catastrophic fires. The enveloped boat burnt to the water line, and no other boats were destroyed.
The City Fire Marshall accounting office indicated the necessary increase to moorage rents for the mandated marina expenditures to be in excess of $84/month based on an 8-year requirement and not 7 years as stated in the existing Code change.
If we saw a 23% vacancy rate at $15.05 increase per slip what vacancy rate will we see if we increase the rate five times greater than our experience?

How do the City calculations justify an $84.00 / slip increase when only 50% of our slips will be full? This means that we would have to increase the slip rate to $168/ slip, however then we may have a 70% vacancy rate? Where is the diminishing return?
Our tenants are not millionaires. Boating should not be just for the rich. Boating in Seattle brings in millions of dollars of revenue to Seattle. Why does the City want it to go elsewhere?

4. The City Fire department estimates do not consider the loss of 20% to 50% of income in the marinas from vacating tenants that adversely affects the ability to pay for the mandated improvements over the 5 to 7 year proposed time frame for compliance.
The 7-year time frame for mandating the completion of all Draft curtains and heat vents is insufficient to accumulate sufficient funding necessary for the mandated improvements based on a financial evaluation. The revenue necessary to make the improvements is statistically impossible to receive over the time frame being mandated. The City must realize that excessive vacancies will occur due to the required rate increases necessary to finance the mandated improvements.
Criteria must be reevaluated, or implementation timing changed to a longer time period.
Could instillation of the vents and curtains be staggered into different sections of marinas protecting larger sections of the marinas over a longer period of time?

5. The City of Seattle should provide within the ordinance the elimination of permit fees for the mandated improvements. This will help defer some of the costs.
If the City of Seattle is placing a significant financial burden onto the Covered Moorage businesses then the City should eliminate or wave any and all permitting fees related to the mandated improvements. Permits will still need to be made for the implementation of the improvements however no fees should be made because the improvements are based on eminent domain requirements. Those requirements, according to the City of Seattle, will benefit all in Seattle because the investment resource is not being paid by the City. It is only fair that mandated requirements be exempted because the private sector is replacing what the City of Seattle infrastructure should be doing. This should be stated within the ordinance.

6. The City of Seattle should provided incentives of tax elimination for the materials and implementation of the mandated questionable improvements.
Again, the City of Seattle is requiring the private sector to make up for City of Seattle deficiencies for the betterment of the overall city. Sales Taxes within the City of Seattle are to benefit the services of the City. Since the City of Seattle is making the requirements for the private sector to take on the responsibility of the city then it is reasonable for the City to either rebate back to the Marinas the cost of sales taxes related to the improvements or eliminate them all together. Currently provisions have been made for fuel tax to be reimbursed for "off road vehicles" so the City should be able to make provisions for the same type of reimbursement and be stipulated within the ordinance.

7. The City of Seattle should include within the ordinance, provisions to pay for or wave mitigation costs indicated within Shoreline Master Management Program requirements. Shoreline management mitigation is mandatory according to the City of Seattle.
The mitigation costs are high and will have to be made in order to make the changes that the City of Seattle is mandating from covered marinas. The City of Seattle should be willing to accept all costs necessary to accommodate the "mitigation requirement" that will be imposed on the mandated involuntary projects. Those costs include: Biologists, engineers, relocation of mitigation areas, and costs to implement the mitigation. Currently, according to the Master Shoreline Plan, the City of Seattle is responsible for protection of the shoreline and endangered species. In recent meetings held by the City of Seattle at the City office in Ballard, discussion about what is required has taken place. The City has stated that if any changes are made to the areas within the Shoreline Master Program (200 feet from the water and over the water) then mitigation must be made. Since the City is requiring the Covered moorages to make changes to structures over water, then specialists will have to be contacted for their analysis as to what must be done for mitigation. Those costs could range in the tens of thousands of dollars on top of what the actual material costs are. The City should be willing to furnish the funding and mitigation costs to make the changes being mandated by the City.

8. The City should indicate within the ordinance that they will help coordinate and do all possible to promote early receipt of permits necessary with the other state agencies involved including the DNR, EPA, Department of Fisheries, Core of Engineers, etc. as well as the City for the mandated improvements.
The City Fire Marshall has indicated that the permitting process and speed of permit completion within the city could be enhanced through city efforts. The Fire Marshall or City should also be directed to promote and require a rapid response in the other governmental agencies allowing the mandated investments to be completed. This should be listed in the ordinance to verify with the affected moorages that the burden is not being thrown upon only the moorages. If the City is unable to push the permits through the other agencies, then the moorages should not be held accountable for not meeting any deadlines established by the ordinance.

9. The City of Seattle has not considered the adverse affect on businesses in Seattle who will loose patrons because boats will leave Seattle for moorages outside of Seattle.
Individual boat owners who rent slips from covered moorages have not been surveyed industry wide. Testimony has been heard from a few boat owners who have indicated they will have to leave Seattle or get out of boating altogether if the rates are increased as indicated by the Seattle Fire Marshall's accounting office. The Stakeholders in the meetings held with the marinas and Fire Marshall's office included the Live-aboard association, however tenants in general have not been surveyed throughout the industry as to why they would choose one marina over another or if they would leave the covered moorages if rates increased an additional $84.00/month. With the passage of the safety committee recommendations and City Council motion of acceptance on Chapter 94, we at Salmon Bay Marina, are receiving termination notices and the reasons are the tenants will not be able to afford moorage in Seattle and want to beat the rush. The tenants are currently moving outside of Seattle.

10. The City of Seattle has not considered the message being sent to potential business and real estate market. What effect will result on businesses if unsubstantiated mandates are made costing property owners hundreds of thousands of dollars that could not be budgeted for in a marketing plan?
Successful businesses today must make sound marketing decisions. This can only be accomplished if all the facts are known. If the City of Seattle implements code changes and ordinance modifications without exploring all angles or without helping businesses accomplish the goals of the City by making tax incentive plans, realistic time frames to accomplish certain criteria and aid in accomplishing the goals, then the City of Seattle is not being proactive toward the business community but is making a formula for businesses to fail within the City. Marinas will not necessarily move from Seattle like Boeing however their customers will.

Please consider the above ten issues and incorporate solutions to those issues within any ordinance being proposed. I would be pleased to discuss any of these issues with you or your representatives. Hopefully we can arrive at financially reasonable solutions.

Respectfully

Charles Draper Jr.
Salmon Bay Marina

The answer received from the Mayors office to my letter was actually answered by the Fire Marshall's office. Basically our city government indicated nothing else could be done and they would try and help speed permitting along however no guarantees if they would be successful or not.

SALMON BAY MARINA NEWSLETTER MARCH 2005

Sprinklers Vs Heat Vents & Draft Curtains in Covered Moorage - If passed by the City Council, covered moorage fees will increase citywide. We suggest amending Council Bill 115185 to accommodate existing marina structures rather than one shoe fits all.

In our January Newsletter we indicated that the City of Seattle Fire Marshall was revising the Seattle Fire Code. The "New" revised code has been passed by Seattle Mayor Nickels and submitted to the City Council for their acceptance or rejection. If adopted, covered moorage and adjacent open slip fees will dramatically increase in Seattle. The good news is that the Fire Marshall's office has recognized that sprinklers in covered moorages are not effective. The bad news is the Fire Marshall's office has come up with an alternative idea using heat vents and draft curtains. The new idea uses vent sizing formulas and draft curtain sizing calculations that, engineering wise, cannot effectively be applied to covered moorages. The fire marshals senior engineer has indicated many critical issues of the new code need addressing but that the Fire Marshall's office is mainly interested in making changes. The Fire Marshall's "New Code" miss-applies the formulas. The retrofit demand by the Fire Marshall to existing marinas, including Salmon Bay Marina, will cost plenty. We are enclosing a letter sample to be sent to the City Council reflecting concerns about the revised code. The letter can be signed, modified to your own desires, or disregarded if you are so inclined.

To be fair, a few of the proposed code changes are good. It is important to have a fire plan that all tenants are aware of. It is also reasonable to have dry standpipes tested annually because firefighters deserve reliable equipment. Currently our dry Standpipes are tested every 3 to 5 years.

What is not fair is that Covered Moorages are being used as a whipping boy because three years ago the City of Seattle did not have the infrastructure that it has today. Three years ago the labor unions of the fire department and police department were squabbling who had jurisdiction to fight marina fires and as a result even though the Harbor Patrol fireboat was at the fire sites, they were told to stand down. The fires spread while the Fire Department tried to match different hydrant hose fitting sizes and when they did get their hoses hooked up the fire department discovered the city water department had turned off the water to the fire hydrants. Needless to say there were catastrophic losses at those marinas because the City Services that taxpayers had been paying for, for decades, were nonfunctional.

Today, three years later, the Ship Canal has two fireboats soon to be three (the Alki at fisherman's terminal and the Harbor Patrol fire boat, with another on the way), the fire department and the harbor patrol are at least talking on the same radio frequency, the Seattle water department is looking at maintaining their water sources, and the fire department is visiting the marinas regularly to confirm their equipment will fit the city hydrants. A recent fire at Wilson Marina proved that the existing system seems to work. Only two boats were damaged within the marina. No catastrophic loss occurred because the aluminum roof melted away and the Harbor Patrol police / fireboat was able to put the fire out.

The changes over the past three years apparently are not enough for the Mayor. To make the mayor's office look good, the Fire Marshall is using experimental formulas and unproven design characteristics on preexisting marina structures. Those structures were originally designed to conform to the necessary fire standards at time of construction. Some, like Salmon Bay Marina exceeded those older standards.

If the "New Code" is passed by the City Council, covered moorages will be expected to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to change their marinas and conform to the new code. Covered marinas will be required to conform to a law that uses non-proven science and inapplicable formulas not designed for marina type structures. The Fire Marshall's office is minimizing "grandfather" design issues because they have been told by the Mayors office to change the code and the Fire Marshall has the governmental authority to make it happen. The result is the City Fire Marshall is trying to make one shoe fit 40 marinas that are all structurally different. Even if the marinas spend hundreds of thousands of dollars making structural changes, we have no guarantee that the city won't change again next year requiring more money outlay for another issue.

If the Code revision process goes through and the people of Seattle are not concerned, then the Seattle City Council may assume they have the "go ahead" to make many other changes. This would eliminate the "grandfather" construction implications currently found in homes, apartments and businesses. The cost to live in Seattle will continue to escalate. For example what if…: Requiring all homes to be retrofitted with sprinklers because of the potential of saving lives: Requiring all underground storage tanks in homes to be double walled. Existing heating oil tanks must be removed and replaced with double wall oil tanks: All old and new houses must have foundations able to withstand new seismic standards - jack up houses and structures, tear out and replace the existing foundation: all electrical panels and wiring must be changed to today's code regardless of being in homes or businesses (the new code is going into effect this year). The City is willing for you to make mandatory investments into your property without the City being required to supplement the investment or without regard to where funds you will need to make the changes are going to come from. Where does it stop?

Your thoughts can be e-mailed to the City Council at http://www.seattle.gov/council/councilcontact.htm or Council Member Nick Licata, Chair for Public Safety mailto:nick.licata@seattle.gov. City Hall, 600 4th Ave. Floor 2, P.O. Box Seattle, WA 98124-4025. We will post the City Council hearing dates on our web site Marina News web page when available.

March 2, 2005

Councilman Licata
Seattle City Council
City Hall, 600 4th Ave.
Floor 2,
P.O. Box 34025
Seattle, WA 98124-4025.

Seattle Washington

Re: Council Bill Number 115185 - Information error and further refinements are necessary to be incorporated into said ordinance prior to passing such a bill.

Dear Councilman Licata

I am a "stakeholder", Marina Owner / operator, and boater that participated in the meetings who assimilated information for the aforementioned Council Bill. I personally contributed input to the Fire Marshall's office during the meetings.

The Fire Marshall's office submitted a hastily composed document to the Mayors office because they were told to do so by the Mayor. This political decision will adversely affect the people of the City of Seattle, create concerns with businesses considering moving into Seattle and may cause businesses to leave Seattle.

This bill misrepresents the risk of "life, property and environment" as being significant in the framing of the ordinance. In reality the bill is a result of past City problems being passed onto private sector, which will have grave impacts to the marina industry and potentially other businesses in the City of Seattle.

The onus of this bill indicates to business that the City of Seattle will subject private businesses to extremely costly mandated improvements to their business without making a total effort of complete discovery and that the city only looks at politics rather than what problems actually exist and what are realistic solutions.

Several issues should be addressed and corrected in the aforementioned bill prior to its passing. Those issues relate to not only why portions of the bill are important but also why some of the remedies incorporated in the bill are in error and how those errors will adversely affect the economic viability and safety of the tenants in the 40+ marinas who are targeted. Mr. Rich Richardson, Senior Engineer for the Seattle Fire Marshall's office concurs that the tables and fire protection issues listed in the "new fire code", including Table 7-7D "Vent Areas for Curtained Compartments" and Table 7-7C "Multiplication Factors for Vent Areas…" are deceptive.

The premise stated at the beginning of the Ordinance includes specific reasons for the Ordinance. Those reasons are being misrepresented.

All marinas are not constructed the same. The construction characteristics of a marina will dramatically affect how a fire will or will not spread. In the marinas that had the catastrophic fires, the $18,000,000 of loss could have been prevented. In addition, those marinas had specific design characteristics that would not allow heat to escape from solid non-aluminum roof structures.

All Covered Moorages are being used as "a whipping boy". Four years ago the City of Seattle did not have the infrastructure that it has today. Four years ago the labor unions of the fire department and police department were squabbling who had jurisdiction to fight marina fires and as a result even though the Harbor Patrol fireboat was at the fire sites, they were told to stand down. The fires spread while the Fire Department tried to match different hydrant hose fitting sizes and when they did get their hoses hooked up, the fire department discovered the city water department had reduced the water flow to the fire hydrants. Needless to say there were catastrophic losses at those marinas because the City Services that taxpayers had been paying for, for decades, were nonfunctional.

Today, four years later, the Ship Canal has two fireboats soon to be three (the Alki at fisherman's terminal and the Harbor Patrol fire boat, with another on the way), the fire department and the harbor patrol are at least talking on the same radio frequency, the Seattle water department is looking at maintaining their water sources, and the fire department is visiting the marinas regularly to confirm their equipment will fit the city hydrants. A recent fire at Wilson Marina proved that the existing system seems to work. Only two boats were damaged within the marina. No catastrophic loss occurred because the aluminum roof (although not "rated for melting point") melted away and the Harbor Patrol police / fireboat was able to put the fire out.

As for other marinas construction, Salmon Bay Marina has had two "major" boat fires over the past 40 years. Both fires did damage to only three boats and did not spread because of the marina design. Our aluminum roofs burnt off and the heat escaped vertically rather than traveling down the dock.

Why should covered marinas that have evidence showing the "catastrophic issues" are significantly reduced, be burdened with the same requirements as those without the special design characteristics? We are talking about 40 establishments not thousands, and one shoe (misdirected ordinance) should not have to fit everybody. You may want to read our web page http://www.salmonbaymarina.com/Marinas_Seattle.htm . It will give you insight as to some features our marina has that other marinas do not have.

Fires in any structure present a significant risk to life, property and the environment. This would include apartments, Duplexes, Triplexes, warehouses, buildings, bridges and residences. The fact that Marinas have not had any loss of life due to fire is thankful but also revealing. A marina is surrounded by Water. The floor is Water. The structures are open on two sides thereby eliminating asphyxiation. If the issues relate to property loss then the record should also explore why some marinas had catastrophic loss and others did not have catastrophic loss when fires occurred.

This "Whereas" has a problem. In the meetings we had for approximately 2 months, including breaks for Christmas and New Year holidays (a very short time to assimilate tangible information), we were presented with charts, formulas and the Fire Marshall's desires. We are pleased that the Fire Marshall's office has recognized that sprinklers are not the answer in that they are too maintenance intense, too expensive, may not structurally be adaptable to some covered marinas and may briefly subdue fire spread but will not put out a fire in covered marinas. The Fire Marshall's correct determination for adapting "passive" and less maintenance intensive approach by using Drafting Curtains, heat vents or a combination of the two for fire protection is appropriate. However the charts and formulas currently in the Ordinance misrepresent the intent of our understanding. If we follow the specifics of the proposed Ordinance, over 8 heat vents will have to be installed into one 35-foot slip. At today's cost of $1000/vent = $8,000.00 per slip. In our 103 covered slip marina the cost of vents alone will exceed $824,000 excluding the other requirements that will result in an additional $180,000. This is not what the marina owners agreed to. Even if we were to only have one vent per slip, the cost will be in excess of $250,000. Our marina will have to come up with over $40,000 / year for the next six years before we will have enough money to pay for the mandated improvements. Those mandated improvements will have a limited effect on many of the marinas if a fire does occur. The heat vents will be basically money thrown out the window, at least at Salmon Bay Marina, because both the existing aluminum roof structure and the heat vents will burn away in the event of a fire.

It seems that Seattle should be enticing business to be proactive rather than causing distress. For the past three years, businesses such as ours have curtailed rate increases due to the poor economy. The boating industry, as in many other northwest industries, has tightened the purse strings during these trying times. Wednesday, March 2, 2005 Seattle PI has an article, "Private sector, key to fueling state economy, is still lagging". The economy will continue to lag if mandates of unsubstantiated requirements are imposed on businesses. If this Ordinance passes, what does it say to businesses that are considering Seattle as a home? This ordinance has no guarantees that the Fire Marshall's office, or the Mayors office will not demand more in the future especially where normal "grandfathered" structures are concerned. Why would any company purchase a preexisting building in Seattle if the potential of having to spend hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to upgrade the structure to the new seismic or electrical standards recently adopted by Seattle. The guise of this Ordinance creates a basis for businesses to be skeptical of Seattle practices that may make demands on business cash flow and hinder the business advancement. Granted some structures are extremely hazardous, however this is not the case with many of the preexisting marinas that are targeted by this Ordinance.

Businesses such as ours have been diligently saving for improvements that will not only enhance our business but will give greater value to our tenants. With those improvements, we are able to charge a higher fee. We cannot charge the month-to-month moorage customer (tenant) a fee today and say someday, six years from now we will be installing heat vents and draft curtains after we have received enough money from you to afford the mandated investment. The improvements being mandated in this ordinance will not add value to many of the marinas because many marinas have already made provisions for fire safety, even though the materials are not "fire rated", they work. The proposed safety enhancement demanded within the ordinance will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to complete. In our case the minimum cost will be in excess of $40,000/ year for the next 6 years. We have saved for the past 15 years to make a $300,000 improvement for a new electrical system. It is now under construction and when completed this year, our tenants know a rate increase will be made. We anticipate an increase of around $1.50/ foot. The additional mandated Ordinance charge of $1.64 /foot that will be necessary to build a reserve over the next 6 years will vacate our marina. Salmon Bay Marina is not a municipality that can tax and spend. We do not have a captive audience. The boats that need covered moorage will travel out of the Seattle area and not leave their money behind. The City has not made provisions for giving money to make the mandated improvements nor do they even know if the marinas are able to borrow the money from lending institutions. No provisions have been made for the requirements that the Shoreline Master Plan mitigation may have, or those of the other agencies including the State DNR, the Core of Engineers, the DOE, or the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

To be fair, the ordinance does have some good input. It is important to have a fire plan that all tenants are aware of and signage that explains where disconnects are. It is also reasonable to have dry standpipes tested annually because firefighters deserve reliable equipment. Currently our dry Standpipes are tested every 3 to 5 years. In addition, some structures that do not have roofs that burn off should probably have some type of venting to allow potential fire source heat to escape, however making requirements retroactive on old structures should be explored completely and not hastily. In addition, the "draft curtain" size and characteristics should be reasonably and safely applied.

The Ordinance relies upon the judgment of the Fire Marshall's office to be an economist on behalf of the Marina establishments. "Section 9401.3 … The retroactive requirements of this chapter shall be permitted to be modified if their application clearly would be impractical for economic or physical reasons in the judgment of the fire code official…" This places the Fire Marshall in a position of having to know economics, financial statements, accounting principals as well as knowing the borrowing power of any particular establishment in order to implement the ordinance. The fire code official may or may not be reasonable. Even though the applicant has the opportunity to appeal the fire code official's determination, it all costs money. Appeals, attorney's fees and time are all expensive. It would be better to have an understanding prior to filing appeals. The fire code official does not have to foot the bill when making an unreasonable assessment, nor does he have to suffer the loss of revenue during the time of the appeal.

My letter attachment has specifics about some issues that have not been considered in the framing of the Ordinance. It can also be found on our web site at. http://www.salmonbaymarina.com/MarinaFireProtection.htm#firecodequestion (Should "New Fire Code" For Covered Moorages be implemented?)

I respectfully request that the ordinance, as written, be shelved until comprehensive investigation can be accomplished.

In the event the Seattle City Council wishes to take a political point of view, then it would seem reasonable for the Seattle City Council to enact only that portion of the ordinance that is suggested to be established within the year time frame that includes only fire extinguishers, signage and emergency plan, and delete the remaining portion from the Ordinance. This will allow time for further investigation as to what the problems are, (if any), and how to address viable solutions. Those solutions will hopefully consider what has worked for the past 50 years even though those solutions do not have a "fire rating". The dialog between the Fire Marshall's office and the Marina industry has proven valuable and as the Fire Marshall becomes more familiar with the intricacies of the Marina industry; a better-crafted document can be attained.

Please review the accompanying letter. It will help to demonstrate some of the deficiencies of the proposed ordinance.

Respectfully,

Charles Draper Jr.
Salmon Bay Marina

Cc Seattle City Council

Should "New Fire Code" For Covered Moorages be implemented?

This basic information was forwarded to the Seattle Fire Marshall the first part of February 2005.

The Fire Marshall's office and marina industry have come a long way in a few short months of review time to provide a guideline for marina safety. Many of the issues including signage, emergency plans and even exploring the use of drafting hydrants is beneficial. Those issues could be implemented easily and almost immediately.

We are pleased that the Fire Marshall's office has recognized that sprinklers are not the answer in that they are too maintenance intense, too expensive, may not structurally be adaptable to some covered marinas and may briefly subdue fire spread but will not put out a fire in covered marinas. The Fire Marshall's correct determination for adapting "passive" and less maintenance intensive approach by using Drafting Curtains, heat vents or a combination of the two for fire protection a reasonable direction. Several areas of the "new code" require refinement. Those areas include: Draft curtain calculations from a chart that is inaccurate for the particular application, Draft curtain height applicability to existing structures, Heat vent characteristics, potentially hazardous visibility issues, maintenance costs for supporting the code modifications, using alternative materials like aluminum roofs to replace heat vents, and construction costs to implement the code suggestions.

The language that has been crafted over the past several weeks, as a general "new fire code", uses erroneous calculations for each of the 40 different marinas that the Fire Marshall's office has targeted. The Fire Marshall will be depending on his discretionary ability to modify a written code that has numerous potential problems. More time is necessary to establish feasible solutions with reasonable wording. The solutions should be economically viable with safer (if possible) conditions than currently exist.

The proposed submittal to the marina and boating industries was crafted under an extremely rapid (approximately two and a half month) time frame Sources continued to furnish valuable information to the Fire Marshall's office up to and including the last meeting date of January 27th. More information continues to be assimilated.

We have been reviewing marina structures and boating practices, and are exploring how the Fire Marshall's proposed "new fire code" document for covered marinas will affect covered moorages and their clientele. If the private sector is going to be required to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to retrofit existing old marinas to a new standard, then that standard should be clearly effective and be economically feasible.

We spoke to Rich Richardson, the Seattle Fire Marshall Senior Engineer, of our concerns. We spoke after adjourning from the joint Marina / Fire department meeting of January 27th. We asked about specifics concerning the charts and graphs the Fire Marshall intends to incorporate into the "new code". Mr. Richardson agrees that my concerns are valid and provisions must be made to economically and safely accommodated those concerns. The economic viability of installing heat vents and draft curtains will be determined by the calculations of how large the vents actually must be and what the configuration of the draft curtain should be.

Although heat vents and draft curtains appear to be reasonable safety precautions many questions still exist. Mr. Richardson concurs that the tables and fire protection issues listed in the "new fire code", including Table 7-7D "Vent Areas for Curtained Compartments" and Table 7-7C "Multiplication Factors for Vent Areas…" are deceptive. They are based on design characteristics that are inconsistent with marina structures. The Code recommendations are based on vents in the center of 30' wide span, flat roofs, and totally enclosed fire areas with no openings. Marina structures are generally two sided shed structures that will have windage affects. Marina floors are water, and fire on boats (the fuel source) is usually located on decks that are generally 5 feet above the water (based on the size vessels that are "normally" moored under cover). The formulas and information used on the aforementioned charts, disregards sloped roofs, dock lighting requirements, walkway heights above the water, lower roof heights than listed on the charts and a fact that smoke visibility is less of an issue on two sided structures. Some of the information developed for the "new code" was hastily inserted. The "new code" does not consider how waterway widths may affect the heat flow nor does it cover UBC (Uniform Building Code) wind load characteristics. All these issues as well as others not yet addressed will affect how any one of the different marina structures will react to modifications required by the general "new code"

Some concerns that should to be addressed include:

1. Draft curtains:

a. The new fire code document indicates a minimum depth of 4 feet and yet the formula indicates a minimum of 3 feet. 4 feet is apparently an arbitrary number. Mr. Richardson had no science that would justify a 4 foot curtain other than to say if three is good then 4 is better.

b. Draft-curtains on a pitched roof where the top of the sloped roof was open is not addressed. How does the slope affect the heat transfer or heat flow?

c. When I asked why draft curtains must be horizontal to the floor, Mr. Richardson said no reason especially when the roof is pitched. Why the draft curtain could not run parallel with the roof surface has not been addressed. Since heat rises, the draft of the heat would direct it to move in the direction of the least resistance, which is toward the open top of a sloped roof (if the roof peek was open). So why must the curtain be horizontal?

d. The Tables listed in the "New Code" are not applicable to marina type structures

e. 4-foot draft curtains may adversely affect boarding vessels especially if stairs are used to board boats from docks when high water exists. I have taken some photos and include them with this document. I have placed within those photos areas showing where a 4-foot curtain extends to, and then I show where the 8-foot high limit above the walkway is. Provisions have been made in the "new code" to not require draft curtains below 8 ' clearance above a walkway. However if stairs are used to board boats, then the draft curtain clearance must be raise an additional 2 to 3 feet to accommodate the headroom required. Boarding stairs are not uncommon for pleasure craft to use when the water is at its highest level during the summer on the Lake Washington Federal Ship Canal.

f. The Fire Marshall's document indicates the draft curtains must be smoke tight. This may not be necessary because the structures are open on at least two sides and smoke will escape from one of the sides. If heat vents are doing their job and open at the appropriate temperature, then those smoke tight seams will not be necessary. It is my understanding that a smoke tight wall is to prevent smoke from entering other living spaces. This is not an issue at marinas. In fact having smoke aroma travel around a marina that indicates a potential fire is brewing may be an advantage. Smoke aroma will alert others on the docks that something may be amiss. The boating community is a very tight alert community. They tend to investigate anything that is out of the ordinary.

The construction for each of the different marina roofs does not easily adapt to smoke tight seams. Marina roof structures are constructed differently. Some have solid roofs using wood decking, while others like ours has aluminum sheeting for the roof structure. Our purlins (roof supports) are spaced at 22 inches and are 8 inches deep. The curved surfaces of aluminum roof membrane changes shape when the sun strikes it, (even Seattle does get some sun during the year). Miles of tape or caulking will be necessary to make the draft curtain walls smoke tight against the roof. The cost of labor alone will be extraordinary because workers will have to erect scaffolding over water in order to install each inch-by-inch piece of tape or caulking. After the tape or caulking is installed it will not hold because the docks are a dynamic structures i.e. the docks continue to move due to wave action and aluminum roof materials expand and contract at different rates compared to newly installed heat vents and wooden purlins. The caulk or tape will not expand or move at the same rate as the rest of the structure. The movement action will break the "seals" over a short period of time thereby rendering the smoke tight effectiveness irrelevant. We currently are continually on the top of the roofs caulking where the roof fasteners protrude through to the purlins because of the expansion and contraction of the aluminum roofs. These fastener repairs are minuscule compared to the miles of an under roof caulking maintenance nightmare.

g. At what breeze velocities are heat vents ineffective? Are they ineffective immediately if a breeze occurs? If so how often is a breeze flowing through marinas? Possibly roof scuppers may be an alternative to evacuate heat?

h. At 4 feet depth, is the draft curtain wind load causing more stress on the marina structure then it can handle? A 4-foot draft curtain that is 50' long has 200 sq. ft. of surface area. A UBC (Unified Building Code calculation) results in a wall force = 20.7 lbs. / sq. ft or 4140 lbs of side load on a structure per draft curtain. If each shed has Three Draft curtains then the total load would be approximately 12000 lbs of side load. Normal structures have additional structural sides that act as shear walls that will support side loads. Marinas generally do not have shear walls per say, they are similar to open pole single level sheds.

2. Lighting: Marinas are constructed in such a manner that boaters (who may only use their boats occasionally) are able to access their slips day or night. In order for boaters to safely navigate their 8+ ton vessels that are 15 feet wide into a slip that is 16 feet wide they must be able to see. Try driving your car on an icy surface into a dark narrow garage in the rain with out lights. Lighting issues diminish if draft curtains that would restrict light are located higher under the roof rather than lower from the roof.

a. Lights must not be in line with boat centerlines and must be higher than the boat flying bridge or lower than the boat deck to allow the pilot of the boat ample visibility without blinding them due to looking directly into a light. Having low curtains will require the lights to be lowered below the curtain to provide lighting to all of the boats in the boat shed. Lowering the lights may place them directly in line with boat pilot's eye level. Light elevations within a covered marina also affect how safe navigation will occur within the waterways of each marina. Some boats moored at marinas have tenders, swim steps or bow pulpits that extend into waterways. Lighting reduces the collision potential by allowing the boat pilot to visually confirm and avoid obstructions. A lower the elevation of a light in a Covered marina results in less waterway lighting.

b. Adding lights to each area encased with curtains adds to the amperage draw. Increasing the amperage load may require replacing the wire and probably the conduit and circuit breakers, panels, new lights etc. These changes all assume the marina has sufficient electrical capacity to increase the lighting amperage load in the first place. In addition to the structural challenges for moving lighting, the light location must also accommodate maintenance of the light fixtures. It is very difficult to replace a light bulb in an enclosed light fixture that is 20 feet above the water with no structure to stand on. Again special considerations for safe maintenance practices must be addressed. The cost just to change a light bulb must be considered.

c. Boat sheds are designed to have light along walkways as well. The curtains may preclude good walkway lighting. This is hazardous for people who walk to their boats at night on the narrow walkways. Remember wintertime darkness arrives at 4:30 PM. Covered moorages tend to block ambient light from beyond the covered docks. It is therefore important to have the walkways lit to prevent accidents, people falling into the water, or onto adjacent boats.

3. Existing roof construction:

a. Some roofs are made of aluminum or steel and others are made with wood decking. Heat transfer or construction "credit" should given to roofs that are aluminum and have proven the ability to disintegrate under heat load even though the aluminum is not "rated". Additional credit could be given for structures that have sloped roofs with venting at the top of the slope. Aluminum roofing materials are expensive and are actually taking the place of roof vents. Photos of a marina fire in 1994 show how the aluminum roof burnt off. The fire did not spread down the dock because the roof burnt off. This is proof that roofs that burn off works. If vents were placed onto the aluminum roof a question arises if the vents would even be effectual. The roof would burn off and destroy the vent anyway. Why place tens of thousands of dollars into vents when they will be ineffectual.

b. If environmental credits are acceptable for international negotiations then why not devise something for structural marina credits for vent areas. This could possibly include existing walls within marinas, aluminum roofs, accessibility to slips (waterway widths allowing access to the boats in case of fire), and reduced potentials of fire jumping across waterways onto other docks.

I have attached a few photos showing the issues of lighting and clearance. The photo shows the major support beams, which are 12 inch square and the light fixtures, which are also 12 inches high.

Photo A shows a blue line, which is the 8 foot level above the walkway, and the brown level is a 4' draft curtain height down from the roof. Also note that the light at the top of the blue section will have its light blocked by the curtain. The light in this instance would be mounted directly in the middle of the curtain and would preclude any light from shining to the walkways or adjacent slips on the other side of the curtain. In this instance, on this particular dock, the light fixture may be able to be moved although if moved it would end up being over the water making it difficult to replace bulbs. Other marinas may not have that ability to move their lights. The 4-foot curtain will obviously have to be raised to the blue line due to the lack of headroom over the walkway.

Photo B shows an artificial Draft curtain installed onto our "C" dock. The light can be seen above the walkway. Note that if a new light is installed below the draft curtain then it will be directly in line with a boater's line of site entering the slips. The water level when this photo was taken is two feet below summer time levels. This may be an issue for marinas that have flat roofs.

We realize that the directive given the Fire Marshall's office is a political issue driven by the mayor's office demanding something be provided in writing. As the marina industry and your senior engineer have indicated earlier, a lot of work still needs to be done on making the "new code" viable. Safety programs and signage are excellent directions and as stated earlier can be almost immediately implemented. However, I believe some other issues should have more study time. Even Seattle's Senior Engineer, Mr. Rich Richardson, has indicated that Seattle is trying to do something that has never been done before.
The Fire Marshall's office, through Chief Nelsen, recently inquired to fire fighting peers on the East Coast of the United States, as to if they thought Seattle was going in the "right direction". It is my understanding that those inquiries led to the affirmative and that a "passive" direction for fire control by using draft curtains was the best direction. It was suggested not to pursue an "active, more maintenance intense" and potentially nonfunctional direction like requiring sprinklers.

So far, only limited existing science has been performed to validate or negate many of the provisions that the Seattle Fire Marshall is attempting to apply retroactively on older open sided existing structures over water with limited floor space and low roof heights.
I am aware that the Fire Marshall has submitted the proposal to the Mayor's office. I am aware that possibly the only opportunity to request further investigation time on portions of the "new Fire Code" lie with the city council hearings and the Fire Code Advisory Committee.

The City of Seattle Fire Marshall's office has pointed out the Mayors political point of view, and we appreciate the Fire Marshall being willing to explore remedies. We all continue to become more familiar with how the marina industry operates with its existing built-in government regulated interjections. Regulations are not only coming from the City Fire Marshall's office. The interjections also come from other government agencies, rules, or laws including: U.S. Core of Engineers, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Seattle Building Department, Seattle Electrical Department, Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Tribes, Federal and State Department of Ecology, Department of Licensing, Drainage and Wastewater, Seattle Water Department and the Washington State Shoreline Management Act to name a few.

I recognize that the Fire Marshall is trying to coordinate a relatively palatable direction of mandatory investment on behalf of the forty or so covered marinas. But so are many of the other government agencies. Again implementing signage and safety programs can be addressed almost immediately, however I trust the Seattle City Council and the Fire Code Advisory Committee will see the wisdom of postponing implementation for much of the "new code" as written. Portions of the "new code" that will be expensive to implement and are questionable as to their calculated effectiveness including required vent sizing should be delayed for adoption until more applicable information is available or at least until a the revised Table 7-7D and other issues raised herein have had an opportunity to be reviewed.
Having a time frame for implementation as specified in the "new code" is important for budgeting purposes and for establishing compliance deadlines. However to over budget for something that is not necessary can be detrimental to a businesses success. This may be the case if the code stipulates designing a larger number of expensive vents then necessary.

As the Fire Marshall's office has reiterated, doing nothing is not an option. Implementing only part but not all of the proposed "new code" is being proactive. Making more investigations as to how vent sizing should be calculated is also being proactive.
The progress of Seattle showing proof that the City has been proactive includes:

1. Now having effective maneuverable city owned boats on the ship canal with fire fighting capabilities manned by Seattle Harbor Patrol who have fire fighting training.

2. The moving of the large Seattle Fire Boat "Alki" to fisherman's Terminal to augment fire fighting capabilities on the ship canal,

3. Better communication between the Harbor Patrol and the Seattle Fire Department,

4. And the fact that recent covered marina fires have been rapidly extinguished and did not cause catastrophic losses (reference Wilson Marina fire).

5. Requiring safety fire plans for marinas in the "new code"

6. Coordinating and furnishing marina layouts to fire stations to enhance fire protection,

7. Validating dry standpipes regularly so they can be trusted by the Fire Fighters,

8. Verifying and making provisions for marinas to have sufficient water to fight fires that may occur,

These features and many more validate that Seattle has not been standing still.
Seattle is and no doubt will continue to do be progressive with regard to fighting fires on the ship canal, and marinas are willing to help address many of the issues.

Much of our remaining northwest industry depends on the water we are surrounded by. As indicated before, just because someone has a boat doesn't necessarily make them rich in dollars, only in spirit. Our marina caters to many different lifestyles who enjoy boating. Lets not price them out of the boating experience.
Respectfully

Charles Draper Jr.
Salmon Bay Marina

The "New Code" Council Bill 115185 should be revised prior to adoption into City of Seattle Laws. The "new Code" should include solutions to many of the issues raised. Feel free to e-mail Councilman Nick Licata (Chairman for the Public Safety in Seattle) mailto:nick.licata@seattle.gov about moorage safety concerns and suggest alternatives if you have them.

Sprinklers - The City of Seattle Fire Department is reviewing the Seattle Fire Code relating to Covered Moorages. If passed, the covered marina industry in Seattle may be significantly reduced due to the costs involved with placing a sprinkler system into moorages. Attached is a letter sent to the City council concerning the Sprinkler idea. Please let Mayor Greg Nickels and the City Council your thoughts. They can be e-mailed at http://www.seattle.gov/mayor/ Obviously if the sprinklers go in then the rates go out out sight or the roofs go away.

December 2 , 2004

City of Seattle City Council and Honorable Mayor Nickels

From: Salmon Bay Marina – Charles Draper Jr.

RE: Seattle Fire Department reviews of sprinkler systems for covered moorages

Dear Mayor Nickels

I am one of the owners of Salmon Bay Marina, a marina that has covered and open moorage slips.

On November 10, 2004, I attended a hearing / meeting at the Port of Seattle offices in Seattle. The Seattle fire department is apparently seeking to require all covered moorages in Seattle to install sprinklers beneath their roofs.

We are sorry you could not attend the meeting because it was very apparent that the expense of installing $811,000 sprinklers into existing covered marinas is cost prohibitive. This is an actual quotation we have received from McKinstry Contracting. Even if marina owners could afford the sprinklers, the effectiveness of the sprinklers would be minimal. Persons at the meeting including the fire department made testimony. That testimony included discussions about fiberglass boats on fire requiring foam to put out the fire and not water. A sprinkler system would therefore not put out a fiberglass boat fire.

Further, our marina is built in piling. The structure is a dynamic structure i.e. every time a large vessel travels by our marina it creates a wake, which in turn, moves the whole marina as if a 1 to 2.0-earth quake was happening. As a result our marina requires significant maintenance. If a sprinkler system were to be installed, it could not be maintained properly to make it operable 100% of the time.

The Fire Chief indicated a response time from the water on the ship canal currently takes approximately 35 to 40 minutes. Response time from shore anywhere in Seattle is 4 minutes.

The problem is once the shore response is there, if a fire is occurring on a pier, the shore contingent is not able to fight the fire from all sides of the pier. Access is only available from one direction. On shore fires the fire department can usually attack the fire from all directions. All of the persons who testified from the audience were concerned with being able to fight a fire from all directions and not just one direction. This means that manned fireboats must be in the ship canal.

The chief indicated approximately 60 covered marinas were in their scope. He also indicated that currently 5 marinas have sprinklers and that they have not had any fires. The fact that the marinas had sprinkler systems did not prove the sprinkler systems were effective, only that the marinas did not have any fires. He did not respond to how many of the other 60 covered marinas have not had fires or why they did not have fires. He also did not inquire about fires that did not spread due to existing precautions.

To date all of the fires discovered in the past 5 years were caused by boat owners and not the marinas. Most of the fires were due to electrical problems onboard, or foolish practices by the boat owner. Although the Seattle Fire Department has no jurisdiction to board any vessel for inspections, the Coast Guard does have that authority. Maybe it would be reasonable to use the Coast Guard as a source for reducing potential fires?

The Fire Chief had a power point computer presentation that included losses of fires in covered moorages in Seattle over the past five years. The chief has been using this presentation as a means to prove that a change to the fire code is necessary. A $9 million loss was shown for a fire at Cadranell Yacht Landing on one of the slides during the presentation. Mrs. Cadranell happened to be in the audience and asked where they received their information. She indicated a maximum of $500,000 was spent on the replacement of their marina and boats that were damaged. Did the other $8.5 million come form trying to fight a fire from the shore?

Salmon Bay Marina followed all the expensive requirements set forth by the City of Seattle including those required by the Fire Marshall when we built our marina. It seams to me that a “grandfather clause” should be in affect, noting that we have made significant investment and have had foresight for reducing potential of harm to life and property.

If a statute of “Grandfather Clause” does not exist, then All of the houses in Seattle with single pane windows will have to change to double pain windows, All houses with underground storage tanks for heating oil will have to take out existing heating oil fuel tanks and replace them with double wall fuel tanks, All of the elevators in Seattle older than 20 years will have to be removed and new equipment must be installed for safety reasons, and every building constructed before 1999 will have to be torn down and new piling under all old buildings will have to be installed because currently, those buildings do not meet the building codes for earthquake reinforcement.

The design of our marina is somewhat unique because it was designed with several fire retarding features including:

· Aluminum roofs on most of the covered sheds that will burn through in the event of a fire. This feature will allow heat to escape vertically rather than spread horizontally. (Recent boat fires under some covered moorage spread because heat could not be released)

· We also have burn out fiberglass skylights that can let light in but will also burn out in the event of a fire, again to let heat out.

· Four-inch standpipes were installed on all of our covered piers. The Standpipes were sized by the fire department according to the code when the marina was constructed,

· Draper designed wide fairways between the piers to accommodate boats to enter the marina and fight potential fires, this feature reduced the potential revenue by reducing the number of slips. We choose to reduce the income and have a safer marina rather than to generate more revenue in unsafe conditions.

· Fire walls between boat sheds

· Draper paid for installation of a separate fire hydrant on the city street next to Salmon Bay Marina with an extra large pipe size..

Our web site also reviews many of the precautions we have made to make our marina safe. http://www.salmonbaymarina.com/Marinas_Seattle.htm

For the past three years we have been upgrading our electrical system. Hopefully the electrical expansion will be completed this year. We have been saving for over 15 years to make this expansion. When completed, we will have invested in excess of $350,000 for the electric system.

All of the boating community is interested in safety and prevention of life threatening circumstances, however requiring expensive sprinklers that will not put out a fire on piers is not the answer. The Fire Chief indicated a sprinkler system might delay the spread of a fire, however only for a short time. Testimony made during the hearing stated that by the time a fire was burning high enough to set off a sprinkler head, the boat would be engulfed and the fire would already be spreading. The Fire Department has indicated water is the best preventative measure to save lives. We have a marina surrounded by water. Every boat has life jackets. Unlike buildings, for a person to get wet, all they need to do is step two feet to the right or left and they are surrounded by water. This is probably one of the main reasons that the Fire departments statistics show no fatalities due to marina fires.

A better answer for saving lives and property will be to have a fire department that can respond for water fires from the water just as fast as can be attained from the shore. The Harbor Patrol in the Lake Washington Ship Canal has successfully responded rapidly to many of the potential fire issues on the ship canal. It may be more effective to utilize the Harbor Patrol skills and capabilities on the water then to depend upon only the fire departments big red trucks. In actuality the Harbor Patrols rapid response on the water exceeds that of the current fire department because they have the equipment to do so. The Harbor patrol does not have to worry about walking on building roofs that are on fire because almost all marinas are single level structures. The Harbor patrol platform is a small fast boat that can access the various marina facilities where trucks can't go. The Harbor Patrol is also responsible for potential terrorist activity. Imagine if the Government Locks were destroyed. Billions of Dollars of damage would result from all of Lake Washington, Lake Union and the Ship Canal emptying into Puget Sound.

My Grandfather was the chief engineer on the Duwamish fireboat. At that time Seattle had two boats. Over 50 years later we now have only 1 ½ fire boats according to our Fire Chief.

Washington and Seattle are recreation and tourist centers. Much of the Lumber, Fishing, and manufacturing resources have disappeared. Seattle receives millions of dollars of support and revenue from the boating community. It is impossible to protect the boats from shore. We as marina owners try to do our best to protect the boats while in the water. It is important that the boating revenue resource have fire fighting equipment and personnel support from the water and not just from the shore to fully support boating.

I would be pleased to give further input if you so desire.

Respectfully

Charles Draper Jr.

Additional Info on Sprinkler Issue: The above letter was sent to Mayor Nickels, however additional information is being brought forward. Through year 2002, three marina fires occurred that were catastrophic. Millions of dollars of boating investment were lost in those fires. It appears a political knee jerk reaction is now being made to force sprinklers to be installed rather than to seek viable solutions using engineering and scientific analysis or even exploring why some covered marina boat fires are not catastrophic. New unnecessary fire codes have been rubberstamped in the City of Seattle for new marina construction and those codes are what the Mayor's office is apparently trying to implement retroactively into existing covered marinas. A solution may already have been achieved without enacting new unnecessary codes.

A time frame of January 31 2005 is being pursued for submittal by the Mayors office for a hasty and quite possibly unnecessary code change. The marinas that had significant damage did not have building structures that would allow for venting hot gasses from beneath their roofs as does Salmon Bay Marina, but the fire damage caused by the catastrophic fires could have been prevented if additional City infrastructure was in place at the time of the fires. Reports about the fires confirm this. Reasons for the excessive losses include a communication break between the Harbor Patrol and the Fire Department. Firemen and police were apparently waiting for instructions while the fire was burning due to a lack of communication. Apparently their radios were literally not on the same frequency. The emergence number "911" was not communicated to both the Harbor Patrol and the Fire Department. The Ship Canal was not being served by fire boats unless they came in from Elliot Bay Fire Stations (a 45 +minute run through the Government Locks). Many of the BMP (best management practices) for marinas were not being instigated. That was then, this is now.

Now, two and a half years later in 2004 (almost 2005), the ship canal has two City of Seattle owned boats with fire fighting equipment on board including one docked at Fisherman's Terminal placed there by the Mayor after the last large Marina fire in 2002, and the Harbor Patrol boat with fire fighting capabilities (including foam that will extinguish fiberglass boat fires). A fire bond has passed that will add another Harbor Patrol boat with fire fighting capabilities to the ship canal. Emergency"911" now coordinates and notifies both the Harbor Patrol and the Fire Department. There is a coordination between the Harbor Patrol and the Fire Department allowing radio communication between both and an agreement has been reached as to who will command when the Harbor Patrol and the Fire Department are at a fire site. Marinas are more than ever aware of fire dangers. Marinas are making improvements within their facilities that are prevention measures and "risk management" rather than "waiting for something to happen and then reacting". As mentioned earlier, Salmon Bay Marina is biting the bullet and investing hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade its electrical systems. Some engineers want to have aluminum roofs with a certification so they know the aluminum will melt with a fire. This may be a little overboard when past fires have proven that the aluminum roofs melt away due to the close proximity of a flame engulfed boat to the roof. We, the Marinas, Fire Department and Harbor Patrol have come a long way. Last month (November 2004) a fire occurred in a non-sprinklered covered moorage at Wilson Marina and that fire included a fully engulfed fiberglass boat fire. The aluminum marina roof burnt off. The fire was basically contained to two boats in the whole covered moorage. The Harbor Patrol received the "911" call and responded rapidly to the site. The damage was minimal because of the inroads that have occurred over the past two + years by the Marinas, Fire Department and the Harbor Patrol. All this without requiring sprinklers in covered moorage's. So tell me again why do we need sprinklers?