2.

President’s Announcements.

 

President Walker said that she had attended a testing program and earthquake testing over in Richmond and was made aware of the seriousness of the fire threat to San Francisco’s wood buildings and said that as a result of that testing a meeting was held with representatives from the Mayor’s Office, PG&E, the Fire Chief, Fire Marshall and DBI staff.  President Walker said that PG&E had upgraded its pipes and the whole infrastructure to make their system more resistant to seismic damage, but said that as a result of that there is some belief that the risk is transferred into the actual buildings that might suffer damage, particularly wood frame buildings.  President Walker stated that DBI staff is working with PG&E and the Fire Department to look at the Code to see if it makes sense, through the Code Advisory Committee and staff, to make some changes to the Code regarding shutoff valves.  President Walker said that everyone has been talking about earthquake preparedness, but fire prevention and the fire risk are equally important and is probably the biggest risk of damage to property and life.  President Walker asked that the Department present an update on this issue at the next meeting. 

 

President Walker spoke about Residential Hotels and multiple unit buildings regarding earthquake preparedness and said that some of the people living in those buildings do not have the ability to adequately have the emergency supplies necessary for earthquake preparedness.  President Walker suggested that through the Community Enforcement Outreach Program (CEOP) DBI might find a way of working to see if there are funds available to provide some of these supplies. 

 

President Walker announced that the Commission receives communication items and those items are included in a binder that is made available to the public.  President Walker stated that the public could bring up any communication item issue during public comment.  Commissioner Hirsch asked if the Commissioners had received these communication items.  Secretary Aherne said that there were very few this month and most are sent to the Commissioners through e-mail, which is very convenient.  Secretary Aherne apologized to the public for not having a summary in the front of the Communication’s folder and said that one would be available by the next meeting.  President Walker said that the Commission was just making these items available to the public.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue said that he was glad that President Walker was bringing up the unpreparedness of this City and said that for the last several months he had been before the Commission saying that the City was lulling the public into believing that the City is prepared to deal with an emergency.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that the biggest danger is that the City does not have a viable plan and said that bureaucrats having meetings was not a plan because the construction industry and the private sector are not being included in these so called plans.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the City should be talking to the Rand Corporation or other “think tank” corporations to set up a model of what to do if there is a major disaster in this City.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that there was no plan of how to exit people out of the City and said that there was not even a helicopter pad in the City that could be used if a building becomes inaccessible.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that San Francisco would be in a situation worse that New Orleans and said that the City had to get rid of the policy coming out of Room 200 that all is well in San Francisco when it is not.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that one of the scathing items that came out about the unpreparedness of the City in a Civil Grand Jury report is that the group that is supposed to be in charge is in a building that is unsafe.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that it is a shocker that the building that housed the 911 Committee for safety is unsafe.  Mr. O’Donoghue that this issue is the responsibility of DBI and said that the City needs to act posthaste because again the City is playing Russian roulette with the lives of the public.

 

3.

Director’s Report.

• Update on future enhancements to DBI’s seismic safety initiatives.

 

Acting Director Lee said that she was going to be brief as she was supposed to be at a 12:15 p.m. Disaster Council Meeting.  Mr. Lee said that staff had conversations with Commissioner Walker about doing a program to follow up on the monies left in the (Unreinforced Masonry Building (UMB) program to get something on the ballot for November, but said that there was no way to do this due to the technical requirements of notice so the Department would be looking at putting something on the ballot for March of next year.  Ms. Lee stated that staff was working to identify what kind of program and the criteria for a secondary program would look like focusing on isolating the next most vulnerable building types behind UMB’s.  Ms. Lee said that of the $200M bond initiative that was passed for the UMB’s only $35M was used and the City was trying to see $20M more, but there was $17M accrued in interest, but the legislation is very specific on the usage of the funds.  Ms. Lee stated that there are also State laws regarding rehabilitation of apartment buildings so the Department would have to do more research.  Ms. Lee said that she would bring this item before the Commission as it develops.

 

• Update on Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS).

 

Ms. Lee said that she thought that there was some confusion as to whether or not the CAPSS contract had expired as the program had been put on hold for several years.  Ms. Lee stated that there was about $190,000 remaining from the last contract, but that initial contract is due to expire on June 30, 2006.  Ms. Lee said that the Commission recently increased the CAPSS amount by $600,000 and said that the Department would be working on how to expedite the secondary portion.  President Walker asked if the work was still going on with the understanding that the contract was going to happen.  Commissioner Hirsch asked if the contract could be extended.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department was working diligently to determine those factors and said that the other City department’s involved were very supportive and understood that this needed to be expedited.  Ms. Lee said that DBI did not want to violate any contracting rules.

 

• Update on DBI Information Systems.

 

Ms. Lee reported that the Department would expect to publish a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Centralized Permit Tracking System by July and would have that done by October and in place by December.  Ms. Lee said that the infrastructure replacement group is on board and have completed the envisioning of the servers and backup house equipment has been replaced.  Ms. Lee said that the Department hoped that by September or October all of staff would have new computers.

  

• Update on hearing regarding DBI’s Code Enforcement Outreach Program to be heard on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 at the Board of Supervisor’s Land Use Committee.

 

Ms. Lee reported that on June 14^th there would be a hearing before the Land Use Committee to celebrate and commemorate DBI’s ten-year anniversary of the Code Enforcement Outreach Program that works with non-profits to try to rectify issues in housing between landlord and tenant disagreements.  Ms. Lee said that this reduced DBI’s efforts in terms of Inspector activity to resolve some of these matters.  Ms. Lee stated that the Department was currently working with the Housing Right’s Committee, Saint Peter’s Housing Committee, the San Francisco Apartment Association, the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and the Chinatown Community Development Corporation.  Ms. Lee said that this was a hearing requested by Supervisor McGoldrick to highlight all of DBI’s efforts.

  

• Notification of June 13, 2006 Department wide meeting.

 

Ms. Lee reported that this would be the second Department-wide meeting ever held and said that the last meeting was held sometime before 1995.  Ms. Lee said that this would be a mandatory meeting for DBI personnel beginning at 3:00 p.m. and asked if the Commissioners would like to attend.  Ms. Lee the Department had hired a number of new employees and would like to introduce them to the Commissioners.  Ms. Lee said that the Department had completed almost 54 promotions and added some 41 new employees.  Ms. Lee said that Mayor Newsom would be coming to visit around 3:30 p.m. to speak to staff to convey his support for the important work that is done at DBI.  Ms. Lee said that the meeting would be taking place at 170 Otis Street. 

 

• Introduction of DBI’s Manager of Communications.

 

Ms. Lee introduced Mr. Bill Strawn as DBI’s Manager of Public Communications and welcomed him to the Department.  Ms. Lee said that she had been working with Mr. Strawn on strategic policies regarding public communications to try to make the public aware that DBI is a professional organization made up of highly competent staff that is reviewing technical issues for the health and safety of San Franciscans.

 

President Walker said that this would be an opportunity for the Manager of Public Communications to have public meetings with the customers who use DBI’s services to get their input on making the services better.  Ms. Lee said that the Department does have monthly Public Advisory Committee meetings and would continue to outreach to the public.  President Walker said that it is important that the Department has consistent rules that are consistently applied.  President Walker stated that the BIC was going to have a joint meeting sometime in August or September with the Planning Commission and that would be a good place to deal with a lot of public issues.  Commissioner Lee said that he would like feedback from a broader spectrum other than those people that the Department works with such as the construction industry as there are many people who benefit from what DBI does, but do not really know what the Department does. 

Ms. Lee said that one of the things she spoke to Mr. Strawn and staff about was to have four or five mandatory community meetings with groups such as the Glen Park Neighborhood Association, or Cole Valley, etc. to got out to each of those many communities and educate them and inform them about what DBI does.  Ms. Lee said that it would help to outreach outside of DBI physically because when the customers come to use the Department’s services they usually only see the complicated side of Code applications.  Commissioner Murphy said that the Department should listen to a lot of advice from the construction industry because they use the services the most.  Ms. Lee said that she agreed and said that the Architects or Engineers are closely related to the quality of the submittals of applications to the Department.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the Residential Builders Association (RBA) said that there were seven items that involved maelstrom energy and reporting, but said that he was perplexed because he thought the Department was supposed to be for getting permits out for homeowners, for remodeling downtown and for new construction.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in the last several months there had not been a report on the productivity of this Department and how permits are being processed for the industry from homeowners to new builders or remodelers.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the industry is full of contractors who work for the homeowners and those contractors and homeowners are dissatisfied with the performance of the Department.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that a few years back a contractor could get an inspection done in 24 to 48 hours and now it is taking a week and a half, yet the Department has hired a whole bunch of new employees.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that as DBI hires more, the service is getting worse.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that if there were a productivity report it would show that productivity has declined and said that there should be a report as was done for the last ten years available for the public at least once a month.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was getting feedback that morale in the Department was at an all time low and said that it is frustrating from the industry’s point and also from union and non-union contractors that productivity is also at an all time low.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he did not think that DBI would be able to get any money from the UMB program transferred to any other program because the legislation was written by bureaucrats and the people would not support it again.

 

President Walker said that the public could go to DBI’s website to see information about permitting activity.

 

Mr. Ken Cochrane said that he worked for a large commercial contractor and said that his company works with a lot of cities in the Bay Area.  Mr. Cochrane said that he wanted to point out that a Building Department of San Francisco’s size is going to have a handful of troubles with employees, but said that as far as public outreach is concerned, San Francisco is by far the best Building Department in the Bay Area in terms of response to the public. 

 

Mr. Ken Cleaveland of the Building Owner’s and Manager’s Association said that he wanted to concur with Mr. Cochrane and said that DBI does a great job in meeting with industry groups.  Mr. Cleaveland said that the Department could probably do a better job in reaching out to community groups and neighborhood associations because homeowners do not know the rules and the Codes and how they are going to be enforced.  Mr. Cleaveland stated that this would be where the outreach effort could have the biggest payback.

 

4.

Public Comment:  The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

 

Mr. Joe O’Donoghue of the RBA said that it was the RBA in conjunction with the Tenderloin Housing Clinic that created this Commission and the Department at the opposition of BOMA, the Chamber of Commerce and the Building Trades Council.  Mr. O’Donoghue stated that he was insistent on outreach, but there are still defects.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that he was present to tell it as it is because the industry is the ones that have forced this Department into efficiency because the industry pays the bills.  Mr. O’Donoghue said, that with all due respect to Commissioner Walker, the Department was functioning a lot better because of the weekly reports that would appear once every two months on the agenda.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that in comparing productivity then and now there is a vast difference.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that RBA members are now leaving the City in en masse and said that the Department should not lull itself into thinking that all is well as it is not.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that the Department is in trouble because good employees were leaving the Department and people with experience were leaving and taking early retirements.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this causes slow downs because new hires have to be trained and the trained staff has- to take the time to do the training.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this is the true picture; there is a slow down in inspections and in general productivity and the Department should just admit this and deal with it.  Mr. O’Donoghue said that this was also impacting tax dollars. 

 

A homeowner introduced herself as Susan and said that she was going to be very blunt because she did not have any stake in people at the Building Department disliking her for complaining because she was not a contactor and never would be.  Susan said that she was nurse and was concerned with health and respected public safety.  Susan stated that she had been working on replacing a very small deck that was rotten and deteriorating that had been on her property for about 50 years, long before she bought the home.  Susan said that she still does not have a permit and said that she had applied seven and a half months ago.  Susan stated that she never disputed any requirement from DBI and said she started construction without a permit because her contractor told her it was a nightmare and the deck was not visible to the street.  Susan said that once she received a Notice of Violation she did exactly what she was told, but said that from day one the process has been entirely unclear to her as she was given conflicting information from several employees in Planning and DBI.  Susan said that it took her four months to get a variance from Planning and that in the meantime she told the Building Department that she would need an extension on the Notice of Violation’s 90 day timeline.  Susan stated that DBI told her that that was not going to be a problem, but in the meantime her case was sent to enforcement and there was a Director’s hearing where she was fined $400 because she did not complete the work on time.  Susan said that she had spent about $3,400 on various mailings and permit application fees along with about 60 hours of work and said it has taken seven and a half months.  Susan stated that had she had any idea what she was going to go through she would have left the deck until it crumbled underneath her feet.  Susan said that she was given unclear, incorrect information, penalized and treated like a criminal.  Susan said that she could give specific names of all the people who gave her wrong information and said that once she actually received her permit she would do so.  Susan said that the reason contractors do not come before the BIC to complain is because they know for them that it would be the kiss of death.  Susan said that the Department is a mess from top to bottom.       

 

President Walker asked for the address of the property.  Susan stated that it was 531 Grove Street.  President Walker said that decks are a major issue and said that this would be one of the issues discussed when the BIC and Planning Commission had a joint meeting.  Susan said that she got inconsistent information from the very beginning.  President Walker said that the Commission apologized and could understand Susan’s frustration.

 

Commissioner Murphy asked why Susan had to apply for a variance if this was an existing deck. Susan said that the deck was built over 50 years ago without a permit and was almost to the property line which is a violation of the Planning Code.  Susan said that here neighbors supported her project and said that there is no communication between the Building Department and Planning.  President Walker asked if the Director could look into this issue.  Ms. Lee said that this was the first time she had heard of this issue.  Ms. Lee gave Susan her phone number and said she would assist the customer and get an update to the Commission.

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he did not think that things were really as bad as it sounds as far as getting permits for homeowners, but said that it is often a case of having the correct information.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that he is a frequent customer at DBI and said that a customer has to have all of their information together.

 

Acting Director Lee said that she had been advised that with the June 14^th Department wide meeting all of the Commissioners could not attend because of noticing and quorum issues and asked if the President and Vice President could attend and then report back to the Commission.

 

5.

Discussion and possible action regarding the Code of Conduct for the Department of Building Inspection, The Building Inspection Commission and Expediters. [Acting Director Amy Lee]

 

President Walker said that this issue had come before the Commission previously. Acting Director Lee said that one of the reasons the Department was doing this was because in the Controller’s Office and Jury Report the Department was criticized that it needed to improve conduct and ethics.  Ms. Lee stated that this was initially drafted by the Controller’s Office and issued, but that version was always a working, living document that the Department worked with staff to make changes and improvements on.  Ms. Lee said that the Department is in a very difficult situation as DBI is providing customer service, but are still a public agency and must still respond to all San Francisco residents.  Ms. Lee stated that while the Department provides customer service at the same time DBI is a Code Enforcement Agency, a safety agency. Ms. Lee said that the system with the enforcement of the Building and housing Codes lends itself not to efficiency, but to processing issues that need to be consistent and said that the Department would work with this Commission to move forward on consistency.  Ms. Lee said that there have been criticisms about the lack of ethics at the Department and many years of FBI investigations, which because of the nature of the business is consistent with most building departments throughout the nation.  Ms. Lee said that employees have expressed their concern and want to do the right thing, but put themselves in a difficult situation when enforcing volumes of Building Codes.  Ms. Lee said that this affects staff’s morale which in turn affects the efficiency of the work.  Ms. Lee said that staff wants to do the right thing and help the project sponsors get things built and fixed, but everything can be changed and turned around in the press when staff is just doing a good job. 

 

Ms Lee said that staff had input into this document and said that it was a little bit different from the previous draft presented to the Commission.  Ms. Lee said that this draft included a Code of Professional Conduct for the Building Commission and said that it was the same as the Statement of Incompatible Activities that has been before the Commission many times.  Ms. Lee stated that this also included Expediters and frequent users of the Department’s services.  Ms. Lee stated that she wanted to show staff that they are not working in a vacuum and that staff has to interact with the Commission and the public and that all actions reflect the Department.  Ms. Lee said that she hoped that this document would be presented and distributed in final to DBI staff at the Department wide meeting and that this would meet the mandates of the Grand Jury audits.  Ms. Lee stated that most important, it would give a clear message to the public that DBI employees are working very hard and trying to do the right thing by working in a professional manner. 

 

President Walker thanked Ms. Lee for putting this document together and said that she thought it was important to address the issue of consistency.  Commissioner Murphy said that the Department needs to let the Inspectors in the field do the job they were hired to do and not have to worry about looking over their shoulders for the Senior Inspectors questioning their decisions as the Inspectors are able to make decisions on their own. Ms. Lee said that she thought that this Code of Conduct would affect staff’s ability to make decisions because staff will know this will not be turned against them at the Commission or misinterpreted at the public level because staff wants to help everyone equally.  Ms. Lee said that applications are submitted that are not of the quality to be approved, but the Department gets criticized if they are not approved.  Ms. Lee stated that people contract with Expediters just the same as most people have an Accountant do their taxes because they know what they are doing, but yet the Department have been criticized as giving preferential treatment to Expediters.  Ms. Lee said that by including everybody in this Code of Conduct she thought that it would go a long way in improving the professionalism and efficiency in the Department.  Ms. Lee said that there was nothing in this document that is different than existing City laws, but is just bringing it all together.

 

Commissioner Lee said that he wanted commend Ms. Lee and the Department for putting this guide together as it is well written and easily understandable.  Commissioner Murphy stated that it was better than the first version.  Commissioner Lee commented on some of the items that he felt would offend employees, such as the sentence that read, “Your paycheck and the satisfaction of a job well done are sufficient compensation for performance of official duties.”  Commissioner Lee asked if that could be revised.  Ms. Lee said that she wanted to thank Steve Nelson for helping her work this through staff and said that that particular commentary was taken from the comments of the Controller’s Office.  Ms. Lee said that she would remove that sentence as she was trying to be respectful of staff. 

 

Commissioner Murphy asked how the Department would scrutinize outside employment for staff as it is hard to raise a family in San Francisco if someone is only earning $40,000 or $50,000 a year.  Commissioner Murphy said that most people in the Fire Department or the Police Department had side jobs to make ends meet and when they were told they could not do that they had to move to Novato or somewhere else outside the City.  Ms. Lee said that the Department was not prohibiting or restricting outside employment, but at minimum it has to be disclosed and cannot conflict with work being done at DBI. 

 

President Walker asked if this had to be approved by the Commission.  Acting Director Lee said that she just wanted to bring it before the Commission to let them know that it was going to be issued and distributed to the employees of DBI.  Ms. Lee said that it is a guideline or more of a message.  President Walker asked if the Commission could entertain a motion to support this document.  Secretary Aherne said that it was on the agenda as a possible action item.

 

Commissioner Grubb made a motion, seconded by Commission Murphy, that the Commission endorse this information going out to the employees, but would add that it is a working document and staff is  welcome to submit their comments or improvements to make this a viable document.  

 

President Walker called for public comment.

 

Mr. Ken Cleaveland representing the Building Owners and Mangers Association (BOMA) said that BOMA had walked this journey with Department staff ever since the issue of registration of Expediters came up and said that everyone knew that the claims of corruption were more smoke than fire. Mr. Cleaveland stated that the Department and the public needed a simple guide on how to deal with each other and said that he would support and applaud the Commission for doing that. 

 

Susan said that this looked like a great document, but seems as if it is aimed at blatant corruption. Susan explained her dealings with the Department and said that she did not find corruption, but just confusion and lack of communication that is very frustrating to a homeowner.  President walker said that it was good that the new Public Communication’s Officer was present to hear public comment.

 

Mr. Ken Cochrane said that much like Ken Cleaveland he is a regular customer at DBI and said that he has been following this issue closely.  Mr. Cochrane said that he did not have any problems upholding his part of this document, but said that he would suggest that the Board of Supervisors should be subject to these requirements as well and should not be asking for special favors.  President Walker said that unfortunately that was out of the BIC’s jurisdiction.

 

Mr. Henry Karnilowitz said that he wanted to commend the Department and the BIC for doing an excellent job and said that he thought the most important thing needed within the Department was a comfort level where the people that are working there can take responsibility and make decisions.  Mr. Karnilowitz stated that it was very important that employees are not afraid to make a decision and not afraid to tell someone that their submittal is wrong or right. 

 

President Walker called for a vote on the motion.  Acting Director Lee said she would make the changes suggested by Commissioner Lee.

 

Commissioner Theriault asked if this document required meet and confer issues with the unions. Acting Director Lee said that this was not required because there is nothing different in this document in terms of new rules, but is just a document to provide guideline and there is no disciplinary process involved. 

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 031-06

6.

7.

Review and approval of the minutes of the March 20, 2006 meeting.

 

Commissioner Theriault made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Lee that the minutes by approved.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

8.

Review and approval of the minutes of the April 3, 2006 meeting.

 

Secretary Aherne stated that Commissioner Theriault and Commissioner Grubb were not present at the April 3, 2006 meeting and could not vote on any motion to approve.

 

Commissioner Hirsch had the following corrections:  Page 10 should read “combination of dual system of special moment, not molded, Structural Engineers Organization should be Structural Engineers Association (SEAONC), Andy Marovich should be Andy Merovich.  Commissioner Hirsch said that there was several misspelling of his name as well.  Secretary Aherne said that she would make those corrections. 

 

Secretary Aherne stated that there was a new rule that there would have to be a motion for Commissioners Grubb and Theriault to recuse themselves. 

 

Commissioner Murphy made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Lee that Commissioners Grubb and Theriault be recused from voting on the approval of the April 3, 2006 minutes.

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 033-06

 

Commissioner Hirsch made a motion, seconded by Vice-President Lee, that the minutes be approved as corrected.

 

The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 034-06

 

Commissioner Grubb asked where the new rule came from. Deputy City Attorney John Malamut said that the City Attorney’s Office (CAO) was just following through with existing law and said that it is policy that the CAO wanted the City Commissions to be consistent with so a policy that the Planning Commission has started recently, the CAO thought that the BIC should follow suit.

 

 9.

Review Commissioner’s Questions and Matters.

 

 

President Walker said that the Commission wants to get the hearing materials out with the agenda by the Wednesday prior to the Monday meeting so Amy, Ann and herself would have to finalize agenda items by Monday.  Acting Director Lee said that in fairness the Commission would have to be a bit patient because sometimes when things are requested it only gives the staff five business days to get things ready and this might not be enough time.  President Walker said that if an item is not ready it would be put over to a future meeting.  Secretary Aherne said that she would like to ask for staff’s help with this issue as an e-mail was sent on May 2^nd with the requests for a May 15^th meeting and the May 15^th meeting was cancelled so in this particular case she should have had that material a lot sooner.  Commissioner Grubb said that he was the poster child for this issue because he was out of town when the package arrived Friday and said that it was not fair to the Commissioners to have to read so much material in one or two days.  Secretary Aherne said that she would hold everyone to the commitment to have all items to her in time for messengering the package on Wednesday afternoon.

 

 

 

Commissioner Walker said that the next meeting would be June 19^th with two continued Abatement Appeals cases and said that Commissioner Theriault would be reviewing the video of the portion of the AAB meeting that he missed.  Commissioner Murphy asked if there would be any meetings in August.  President Walker stated that the Planning Commission typically closes down for the month of August.  Commissioner Murphy said that he would be out of town for the month of August and Vice-President Lee said that he would be out in September.  President Walker said that during the summer months when there are staff vacations as well as Commissioners vacations it might be better to go to one meeting a month.  President Walker said that she would work with the Secretary to see what agenda items would be outstanding. 

 

Acting Director Lee stated that the Department was trying to make Performance Evaluation complete for the entire Department and said that she wanted to include herself and Secretary Aherne to be included some time in July.  Secretary Aherne said that there would be no meeting on July 3^rd because of the July 4^th holiday.  Secretary Aherne also asked if the performance evaluations would be in open or closed session since she had never gone through one.  Ms. Lee said that it would be a closed session.

 

There was no public comment on this item.

 

10.

Public Comment:  The BIC will take public comment on matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda.

 

There was no public comment.

 

11.

Adjournment.

Vice-President Lee made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hirsch that the meeting be adjourned.  The motion carried unanimously.

 

RESOLUTION NO. BIC 035-06

 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:10 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,


______________________

Ann Marie Aherne
Commission Secretary