Department of Building Inspection

Dear President Lee and Commissioners:

As I leave my position as Director of the Department of Building Inspection to pursue an outstanding professional opportunity within the private sector, I write to express my sincere appreciation for the Commission’s invaluable support, guidance and commitment to achieving mutually agreed upon goals for the Department throughout my tenure.

Thanks to DBI’s multi-talented, dedicated and enthusiastic staff, and with the Commission’s support, we have established a strong foundation that will enable the Commission and Acting Director Vivian Day to continue to make DBI more efficient, transparent and more customer-responsive.  With the ongoing implementation of our Business Process Reengineering (BPR) recommendations, improved coordination with other City development review agencies, stronger management, auditing and automation systems, as well as with the new fee adjustments that take effect on September 2^nd, the Department is making the structural reforms needed to create a more streamlined and predictable permit review and approval process.

It has been an honor, and a pleasure, to work with everyone on the Building Inspection Commission during my tenure as DBI’s Director.  I am confident that with the Commission’s ongoing and enthusiastic commitment to continuing the structural reforms currently under way, and with the DBI’s staff’s unflagging support of the Acting Director and her management team, the Department will continue to fulfill its mission of providing outstanding building safety services to the people of San Francisco.

Thank you, again, for supporting my leadership efforts on behalf of the Department of Building Inspection.

Sincerely,
Isam Hasenin, P.E., C.B.O.
Director

President Lee stated that if it was alright with the other Commissioners he would like to reply and send Director Hasenin a simple thank you letter.  President Lee welcomed Acting Director Vivian Day.

President Lee said that on Monday the China Earthquake Technical Partnership hosted a seminar that DBI was a part of and included a presentation from Zepha Wang, the Director of the Institute of Engineering Mechanics, at the China Earthquake Administration.  President Lee stated that the focus of Director Wang’s presentation was for experts to learn more about the China earthquake and to determine how and what was learned could be applied to San Francisco’s earthquake preparedness.  President Lee said that the City Administrator Ed Lee and DBI are leading the City’s participation on the technical partnership, and members include University of California Pacific earthquake engineering research and businesses. President Lee said that Deputy Director Ray Lui was one of the five panel members at the event and lent his expertise to the panel.  President Lee said that he was unable to attend the meeting and asked Acting Director Day if she had any comments or updates as to what happened at the meeting.

Acting Director Day said that the event was attended by about two hundred people; Commissioner Levitt was there and it was very well presented.  Ms. Day stated that the staff and audience were comprised of structural engineers, geotechnical engineers, and students.  Ms. Day said that there were people from all walks of life there just to find out about the actual event.  Ms. Day said that there were people present that actually went to China to view the event and they brought slides and pictures of the fault lines.  Ms. Day stated that the information was very well presented and it is going to be put online so that everyone can view it.

Commissioner Walker stated that she was hoping to attend the event but had other plans.  Commissioner Walker asked Acting Director Day if she could put together an informational staff presentation for the next Community Action for Seismic Safety (CAPSS) group meeting. Commissioner Walker said that she thinks it would be helpful to see what the panel talked about.

Acting Director Day said that she and Deputy Director Lui have talked about that so they would be presenting that information for the next CAPSS meeting. 

Secretary Aherne called for public comment on the President’s Announcements.

Mr. Rodrigo Santos of the San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth (SFCRG) thanked the members of the Building Inspection Commission for expediting the process of hiring the interim Director.  Mr. Santos said that he had a few suggestions, one would be directed to the Commission and one would be directed to Ms. Day.  Mr. Santos stated that in terms of the Commission it is important that Ms. Day be allowed to select her own team as it would be crucial that she works with people that she has confidence in and has in-depth knowledge of their technical abilities.  Mr. Santos said that in terms of the Department and suggestions for Ms. Day, he thinks that there are some great processes and great elements of the previous Director’s approach that are expediting the permit process.  Mr. Santos urged Ms. Day to continue with that process since permit fees are the only source of revenue for the Department of Building Inspection, and everyone is all about expediting permits and creating an environment where safety and efficiency are essential.

Mr. Luke O’Brien, President of SFCRG, said that he wanted to lend his support to Acting Director Day and congratulated her on her appointment.  Mr. O’Brien urged the Commission to allow Ms. Day the freedom and authority to appoint the people that she needs to get the job done, without dictating who her generals and lieutenants should be.  Mr. O’Brien stated that within the last year he had the occasion to work with Ms. Day on a matter that was escalated to her level, and said that it was a refreshing experience in comparison to what he was used to.  Mr. O’Brien said that Ms. Day was not afraid to tell him how the process worked and was not afraid to make a decision.  Mr. O’Brien stated that he was optimistic and excited about the year to come.  Mr. O’Brien stated that another agenda item he wanted to mention was the housing authority, because he would not be present for that portion.  Mr. O’Brien said that he wanted to caution that joining organizations from different departments into one organization is something that scares him.  Mr. O’Brien stated that when he was in the private sector his boss talked about taking on a new branch, new department or new part of the organization he would loathe it if he was maxed out trying to get his own job done well.  Mr. O’Brien stated that when the discussion on the housing authority occurs he would hope that people proceed with caution, and maybe start out with the notion of not getting too involved.

Ms. Rose Thai stated that she wanted to bring the Commission’s attention to a lot of the problems in DBI and how frustrating it is for the public.  Ms. Thai said that the BIC needs to be really careful in choosing the next Director and making sure that it is somebody who really understands the City’s Code and policies.

Mr. John Keogan of SFCRG told the Commissioners that when he spoke on August 7^th, he expressed concern that the BIC might go into lengthy deliberations and committee type meetings to choose a Director, which would bring a lot of needless complexity.  Mr. Keogan stated that he was very pleased that the Commissioners have reached an excellent decision, and wished Acting Director Day good luck.  Mr. Keogan said that he wanted to comment on the previous Director’s work of creating multiple divisions, having more accountability on a whole new unfettered leadership.  Mr. Keogan stated that he hopes the new Director will continue with Director Hasenin’s work, particularly elements of the BPR, and he reiterated that Ms. Day should get to select her team to help her.

4.  Presentation of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DBI and the San Francisco Housing Authority.

President Lee said that he believed the last time the Commission talked about this MOU with the Housing Authority was late December 2006; the intent of the MOU was to install some procedures on how DBI could work with the Housing Authority to insure that residents of the Housing Authority have safe and healthy places to live.  President Lee said that according to the MOU complaints from residents were to be handled, which would give the residents a transparent view of how both departments are working together to make things better.  President Lee stated that he thinks there are about 5,000 Housing Authority units citywide.  President Lee stated that the MOU was signed by both departments in the early part of 2007, and now the Commission is getting an update as to how the process is working.

Rosemary Bosque, Chief Housing Inspector, stated that one of the goals of her presentation, in addition to giving the Commission an update on what has happened since the execution of the contract back in 2007, would be to give some background behind the creation of the MOU and the history of the Housing Division with respect to jurisdictional issues associated with the Housing Authority.  Ms. Bosque said that prior to the drafting of the MOU, the Department of Building Inspection in working with the Housing Authority and the City Attorney’s Office asked to make sure that the Department had jurisdiction over the Housing Authority with respect to the San Francisco Housing Code.  Ms. Bosque stated that she recalls doing inspections in Housing Authority buildings going back as far as 1986 or before to complete inspections and deal with complaints, but the issue before the Department is if they find a violation where the Housing Code applies DBI will work in a partnership with the Housing Authority. 

Ms. Bosque said that this was the genesis behind the creation of the MOU and the participants that were involved in the revision of the document before it was executed between the departments included:  The Department of Building Inspection, Director, Executive Staff, and the Deputy Director.  Ms. Bosque stated that in addition staff consulted with the outreach contractor that does a lot of work in the Housing Authority project such as the Housing Rights Committee, and staff talked with the City Attorney code enforcement division, and of course worked very closely with the Housing Authority to come up with the document.  Ms. Bosque said that the document’s purpose essentially is to promote an efficient and effective way to communicate when the Department of Building Inspection receives complaints from occupants of public housing, and that is what the MOU deals with.  Ms. Bosque stated that the document does not address complaints of private housing and is purely protocol for complaints of the public housing code with routine inspections that include the Housing Authority buildings that the Housing Inspection Division does once every five years.  Ms. Bosque stated that DBI asked the City Attorney to make sure that jurisdiction issues were clear, and in 2006 the City Attorney’s Office wrote a letter to the Housing Authority and the Director explaining all the legal points and authorities that state and federal law require that the Housing Authority comply with local code enforcement and specifically with habitability requirements; therefore the Housing Authority has to comply with the San Francisco Housing Code.  Ms. Bosque said that the Department wants to establish a protocol for receiving complaints and note how much time it would take to give it to the Housing Authority, as well as discuss how they would get the information.  Ms. Bosque stated that the great thing about this particular MOU is it is broken up essentially between whether it is an alleged maintenance issue, general maintenance, non-life hazard or life hazard.  Ms. Bosque stated that and email is sent to the Housing Authority as soon as a complaint comes in and there is a form that is sent to the Director of Management or their Maintenance Manager, and the Housing Authority’s general counsel so at the very beginning of the process the Housing Authority knows the nature of the complaint in order to make the best decisions as to responding as quickly as possible.

Ms. Bosque said that the Department encourages occupants to contact the Housing Authority as quickly as possible because they are the entity that is going to have to make the repairs.  Ms. Bosque stated that the MOU is only dealing with complaints that DBI gets and those are forwarded by specific time frames, for example: A non-life safety hazard is done in two business days and if it is a life safety hazard it is done in one business day.  Ms. Bosque said that there is simultaneous notification to the Housing Authority and there are approximately five to six steps that the Department goes through as far as building inspections or verifying that the work is done. Ms. Bosque stated that in looking at the last two years the Housing Authority has been fairly responsive when they have gotten the information from DBI, so this system works a lot better than what it has before.  Ms. Bosque said that the in the last two years 56 complaints have come in, 33 the first year and 23 complaints within this calendar year.  Ms. Bosque stated that when a complaint comes in from an occupant it can have more than one item being complained about so there can be multiple violations.  Ms. Bosque stated that moisture retention and damage due to water intrusion is one of the biggest complaints.  Ms. Bosque said that the Department keep a tracking table, and eleven items are still outstanding. Ms. Bosque stated that staff has gone through each of these cases and found alleged life saving hazards that are outstanding, and some of these have not been corrected yet because they involve doing major renovations to an entire complex.  Ms. Bosque said that the first unit on Dakota has a problem with the water system and the water pipes that are underground, so the Housing Authority is going to have to make major revisions to that.  Ms. Bosque stated that they have done some interim measures and DBI is making sure each of these items gets completed, so this requires staff to do re-inspections, have contact with the complainants, and work with the Housing Authority in order to close the case out. Ms. Bosque said that the tracking table shows that the majority of the cases complained about have been abated.  Ms. Bosque stated that within the memorandum between the two parties are the provisions for DBI to be able to give annual reports to the Housing Authority and the Board of Supervisors.  Ms. Bosque said that she would be happy to answer any questions.  Ms. Bosque acknowledged a few people in the audience:  Government liaison from the Housing Authority, Mr. Kyle Henderson, Sarah Short from the Housing Rights Committee, one of the Department’s Code Enforcement outreach programs, and Mr. Tim Mansur who is a Housing Inspector at DBI.  Ms. Bosque stated that she had to give Inspector Mansur credit for the Power Point presentation and the tracking table so at any point in time staff knows where they are with the time spent and the status of a case.

Commissioner Walker thanked Ms. Bosque for the update and said that this is a really great program that DBI has partnered with the Housing Authority and it seems to be working.  Commissioner Walker stated that sometimes just shining the light and helping the situation makes things better, and she asked when the complaint comes in and DBI staff goes out does it affect one unit or the whole project. 

Ms. Bosque said that it depends on the nature of the complaint; if it is a leaking pipe that the inspector sees is coming from another area then the inspector will address whether it is drainage or something else.  Ms. Bosque stated that staff will address that with a Notice of Violation (NOV) such as the instance she mentioned with the Dakota Street property, but it is not a routine inspection so from that standpoint that is an issue that the jurisdiction will need to address.  Ms. Bosque said that if in order to solve the problem it goes beyond that particular unit then staff is going to address that with the Housing Authority.

Vice-President Murphy asked how many Housing Inspectors there are, and if the Housing Authority had their own inspectors.

Ms. Bosque stated that the Housing Authority has approximately three inspectors that do what is called the Federal standards for annual inspection for the housing standards.  Ms. Bosque said that it is different from what is required by the San Francisco Housing Code, so there is a question as to whether or not DBI’s efforts in addressing complaints or previously in addressing routines are a duplication of work.  Ms. Bosque said that there are three inspectors for over 5, 00 units. 

The following points were discussed after Chief Housing Inspector, Rosemary Bosque’s presentation:

• The amount of DBI staff time spent doing these inspections.
• 55 hours of staff time has been spent so far.
• One DBI Housing Inspector is spending time on this project, but if the Department starts getting more complaints then DBI’s resources would have to be reassessed. 
• Will some of the Department’s programs suffer because of taking on extra work?
• Currently HIS staff has been able to blend this service in with the other housing inspector duties, but DBI does not receive any money from the Housing Authority for this service.
• Getting additional funding to support the MOU is something to look into, as well as making sure the inspections do not conflict with DBI’s other obligations.
• The typical code enforcement tools such as orders of abatement or putting a lien on the property does not work for the Housing Authority.
• MOU is important because it establishes an agreement between both parties: DBI & the Housing Authority.
• Important to proceed with caution since DBI does not have the manpower or money to handle a huge amount of cases.
• The Director will keep an eye on this and make sure DBI is not overextending itself.
• At times there may be frivolous complaints, but the MOU allows the Housing Authority to assess the situation and address that more directly.
• The Housing Authority has been very good at responding to DBI’s notices & requests.
• Residents should contact the Housing Authority first, before going to DBI.
• Staff tracks the number of complaints that come in and keeps the tracking sheet current.
• The community outreach groups can let DBI know if they are fielding a lot of tenant complaints.
• Once NOV is issued DBI undertakes burden of getting them to comply; DBI wants both sides to be able to address the issues properly.
• There are a very small percentage of Housing Authority complaints because HIS has dealt with a property owner of over 5,000 units and within the last 2 years there have only been 56 complaints.
• Housing Authority complaints represent 1% to 2% as opposed to the majority of HIS complaints that are citywide for private and Section 8 housing.
• HIS inspections cover apartment buildings, hotels, one and two family dwellings that are not owner occupied.
• 30% of the total hours were for clerical and the balance was for inspection; possibly explore shifting that to the Housing Authority & DBI just handle the inspection part of it.

Mr. Kyle Peterson of the San Francisco Housing Authority said that he thought that this conversation was timely since DBI is bringing in a new Acting Director, and the Housing Authority has recently hired a permanent Director.  Mr. Peterson stated that prior to their permanent Director’s hiring the City Administrator led a transition team in a process that transpired from the course of the former Director leaving and the new Director coming on board with that transition team.  Mr. Peterson said that the transition team researched the Housing Authority and their various opportunities for improvement that the City could support and one of those opportunities was to improve their calls for service.  Mr. Peterson stated that one way the Housing Authority is improving their calls for service is by working with 311.  Mr. Peterson said that he hears the Commissioner’s concerns about the time being put into the project, but said that there are opportunities that have recently come about which would decrease the amount of time that DBI’s staff puts into the project.  Mr. Peterson stated that he would like to ensure that there is an opportunity for Housing Authority Director, Henry Alvarez, Acting Director Vivian Day, and BIC President Frank Lee to meet and talk about where things currently stand, how duplication can be reduced, and to take the most consistent course of action.  Mr. Peterson said that he is concerned about some potential confusion that could occur from Commissioners, DBI staff, and Housing Authority residents.  Mr. Peterson stated that the three entities need to be clear in their messaging and discuss how they can be very clear and concise in their partnerships, because the transition team is looking to improve and build upon City partnerships that may have been challenged or lacking through the previous Director at the Housing Authority.  Mr. Peterson said that this program is successful and said that the Housing Authority would like to build upon it and reduce duplication.

Commissioner Levitt said that when he was a tenant and if something went wrong he would call his landlord directly, so there must be some reason why people in the Housing Authority properties are bypassing calling their landlord directly.  Commissioner Levitt asked if the Housing Authority has been responsive in the past and if it is difficult to get through to somebody so tenants are calling 311 or the Department of Building Inspection.  Commissioner Levitt stated that maybe something can be improved in the way the Housing Authority responds or the way tenants can get through so that it does not become a big burden for the City to repair things like a broken electrical outlet.

Mr. Peterson said that every Housing Authority site has a property manager allocated to that site, and the very simple cases such as batteries for fire alarms or electrical outlets that are blown out are things residents can go to the property manager and ask for repair.  Mr. Peterson stated however in terms of messaging that the City is trying to be very clear and consistent in their messaging and the Housing Authority wants to make sure that the message to all San Francisco residents is to call 311 for any problem under the sun, and that is reflected to their public housing residents as well.  Mr. Peterson said that this is not a distinction of public housing residents and private residents of San Francisco.  Mr. Peterson stated that one way to do that is to improve upon a potentially challenged infrastructure that was in place in terms of building repairs and building upon that by connecting it to 311 which directs all City infrastructure requests through a main line and therefore whether it is potholes or lighting that is out at a public housing site, then a need for repair group can go through one simple call number.

Vice-President Murphy asked why there were only 3 inspectors for 5,000 or 6,000 units.

Mr. Peterson said that he would have to go back and look at that because he is new to the agency, and has only been on board for three to five months.  Mr. Peterson stated that having a meeting with the President and the Director would be advantageous in order to work through some of these logistics.

Commissioner Walker thanked Mr. Peterson for attending the meeting and for helping to explain the partnership.  Commissioner Walker said that she is the tenant representative on the Commission and that many tenants do not know who to call and there is the issue of even if they do call the history of the Housing Authority has been to not respond.  Commissioner Walker stated that one of the big issues was to have DBI help them to prioritize those issues, but this is an MOU and not DBI taking over another department.  Commissioner Walker said that DBI staff should try to help the process by using its Code Enforcement teams especially in getting the message out to the tenant community and helping establish how the fixes can happen.  Commissioner Walker asked how the Housing Authority was doing financially, because in the past there has been a problem with having funding to carry out the repairs.

Mr. Peterson stated that the Housing Authority is in a bit of a bind right now and are assessing their situation.  Mr. Peterson said that they will be putting forward their budget to HUD in the coming months so there will be a better sense of where the department stands financially.

President Lee said that a lot of complaints come to DBI and it is like the “catch all” for all tenants anyway, not just the Housing Authority tenants.  President Lee stated that whether it is the public or private sector, if tenants have problems with their landlord or they do not know who to call, they end up calling DBI.  President Lee said that this is a good point for the Directors of the Housing Authority and DBI to get together and discuss what the next step should be and how they can build upon this.  President Lee stated that it seems like what is in place is working right now, and it is great to be more efficient.

Commissioner Sattary asked Housing Inspector, Tim Mansur if there are calls that go to 311, related to the Building Department.

President Lee stated that he thinks 311 would define what type of call it is, and then they would route it to either the Housing Authority or DBI to take care of the problem.  President Lee said that 311has the ability to make that determination.

Acting Director Day said that she can certainly find out from 311 what calls go where and report back to the Commission.  Ms. Day stated that at this point she is not clear how the calls come to the Department or who makes the decisions to route the calls to DBI vs. the Housing Authority.

Housing Inspector Tim Mansur stated that the Housing Inspection Division receives calls from the tenant directly, and the administrative staff enters the complaint into the Department’s database and then if it is a Housing Authority complaint it will automatically be forwarded to Inspector Mansur, and then he would follow the procedure set forth in the MOU.

President Lee called for public comment.

Ms. Sarah Short, The Executive Director of the Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco said that the organization has many Housing Authority tenants who come to them with repair complaints, so she wanted to give the Commission their perspective on how and why this MOU works and why the Housing Rights Committee supports it.  Ms. Short said she wanted to clarify a few things related to some of the comments made today; this is not a new obligation because the Department of Building Inspection has always been required to inspect Housing Authority properties and perform code enforcement.  Ms. Short stated that what this MOU does is simply lay out a new process for dealing with those complaints, so she really wants to make it clear that this is not a brand new obligation DBI is taking on, but it is simply a way of clarifying how the procedure will work.  Ms. Short said that there has been a lot of confusion in the past so the MOU is really useful and in the end makes things more efficient in terms of having a protocol to follow when a complaint comes in.  Ms. Short stated that there is a designated contact person at the Housing Authority and it is simply a communication method with e-mail. Ms. Short said that she wanted to clarify that the 311 calls are just a new way for residents to report their complaints and those calls go directly to the Housing Authority as far as she is aware.  Ms. Short stated that in the past there were many problems with tenants being able to report complaints to the property managers and higher ups at the Housing Authority, and their problems were not resolved.  Ms. Short said that this MOU is not something to bypass property management and go directly to DBI, because if that were the case there would have been far more than 56 complaints in two years.  Ms. Short stated that there are 6,300 units of public housing properties and if anyone has read the paper lately those are not in great shape.  Ms. Short said that as a community outreach organization, they always work with residents to contact property management and if that does not work then they know who to contact at the Housing Authority.  Ms. Short stated that they try to resolve problems before they get to DBI as they understand that DBI has limited resources so they want to use the Department’s services wisely.

5.   Discussion and possible action for the Commission to convene a Closed Session regarding a Public Employee Appointment (1)
a.     Public Comment on all matters pertaining to the Closed Session.

There was no public comment.

b.     Possible action to convene a Closed Session.

Vice-President Murphy made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sattary that the Commission go into Closed Session.  The motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 045-08

The Commission went into Closed Session at 10:20 a.m.

i.       Discussion and possible action to approve the appointment of a Deputy Director (1) by Acting Director of Building Inspection.

Commissioner Walker made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Murphy that the Commission reconvene in Open Session.  The motion carried unanimously

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 046-08

The Commission reconvened at 10:40 a.m.

d.   Reconvene in Open Session to vote on whether to disclose any or all discussions held in Closed Session (Administrative Code Section 67.10(b)).

The Commission reported that in Closed Session the Commissioners agreed to disclose the discussion held.
Vice-President Murphy announced that a Deputy Director was recommended by Acting Director Day.  Vice-President Murphy stated that he was pleased to announce that the Commission had voted and approved the appointment of Edward Sweeney, Chief Building Inspector, to the position of Deputy Director of Inspection and Housing Services.

Deputy Director Edward Sweeney thanked the Commission for the wonderful opportunity to serve, and said that he looks forward to serving with each and every one of the Commissioners. Mr. Sweeney stated that he knows most of the Commissioners and hopes to get to know the others over time.

President Lee called for public comment.

Mr. John O’Connor of the Residential Builders Association congratulated Mr. Sweeney for being appointed as Deputy Director and thanked the Commission for supporting the Acting Director’s staff moving forward.  Mr. O’Connor said that he thought Mr. Sweeney was a good choice as Mr. Sweeney was involved in a lot of the changes that have taken place at the Department and is very familiar with the BPR process.

6.   Review and approval of the minutes of the May 21, 2008 meeting.

Commissioner Murphy made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Murphy to approve the minutes of the May 21, 2008 meeting.  The motion carried unanimously.  Commissioner Levitt abstained as he was not at the meeting.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 047-08

7.   Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

a.  Inquiries to Staff.  At this time, Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, policies, practices, and procedures, which are of interest to the Commission.

Commissioner Hechanova said that since San Francisco has adopted the most stringent green building policy in the nation, has the Department seen any response to how things are being implemented or permits that are being applied for.

Acting Director Day stated that at the present time DBI has not had any green building permits applied for, per se, and the community and the industry are working towards that goal.  Ms. Day said that the Department is training staff in the green building procedures and policies.

President Lee said that the green building ordinance was just adopted about a month ago, so maybe some time later down the line about six months or a year from now the BIC can agendize this item to see how many of these buildings have been submitted to DBI.

Commissioner Walker stated that she wanted to follow up on the item explaining the Department’s financial situation a little better, and also discuss the reserve that seemed to disappear and clarification of DBI’s budget. 

Acting Director Day said that this is something the Department is certainly working on right now for the next meeting.

Vice-President Murphy asked about DBI moving to a new location, and he questioned if this was still in the works.

Acting Director Day stated that this item could be agendized for the next meeting.

Commissioner Levitt asked if there are any bicycles available at the Building Department for the Inspectors to use.  Commissioner Levitt said that if there were bicycles available for Inspectors to use on an inspection close to the Department maybe it would contribute to the desire to be a more green community.

Acting Director Day said that she could have Deputy Director Sweeney look into this, as well as address why DBI inspectors inspect the way they do. Ms. Day stated that perhaps this could be agendized for the next meeting. 

Commissioner Levitt stated that maybe it could be an option for staff to use bicycles when they can instead of driving.

Commissioner Hechanova said that there could be additional insurance exposure.

Commissioner Sattary stated that he would like to request the Director’s report for future meetings to include the statistics and information about permits.  Commissioner Sattary said that the Commission has not received the statistics report for the past several months.

Commissioner Walker asked for an update on the computer process.

8.     Adjournment.

Commissioner Murphy made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hechanova that the meeting be adjourned.  The motion carried unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 048-08

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Sonya Harris
Assistant Secretary

Edited by

_______________________
Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary