Building Services Task Force Minutes of the February 1, 2012 Meeting

Transcription

1 Building Services Task Force Minutes of the February 1, 2012 Meeting Oakland City Hall Sergeant Mark Dunakin Hearing Room (Hearing Room 1) 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. In Attendance: All task force members were present Alan Dones (Chair), Anne Bruff, Michelle Cassens, Curtis Caton, Alan Dones, Donna Gianoulis, Ken Houston, C. Joseph Keffer, Lynette Jung Lee, Ellen Lynch, Valerie Miles-Tribble, Sherry L. Niswander, Patricia C. Zamora City Officials and Staff present: Larry Reid, Council President Deanna Santana, City Administrator Fred Blackwell, Assistant City Administrator Ray Leon, Office of Larry Reid Margaretta Lin, Special Projects Director for the former CEDA Rich Illgen, Supervising Deputy City Attorney from the Oakland City Attorney s office Ray Derania, Building Official and City Engineer Amy Paul, Management Partners Emily Lohr, Management Partners 1. Welcome and introductions Larry Reid, Council President thanked the Task Force members for their commitment to the process and for helping the City. He stated that he is looking forward to the outcomes of their discussions, and thanked Alan Dones for his leadership as Chair of the Task Force. Deanna Santana, City Administrator thanked the Task Force members for volunteering their time to help inform the Council s decisions. She discussed the need to address known issues and acknowledge the progress that has already taken place within Building Services. While there may be disagreement, it is healthy to show the breadth of thinking and suggestions. Fred Blackwell, Assistant City Administrator emphasized that the City is serious about implementing the outcomes of the Task Force, as the work they are doing is important to a whole scale reorganization of the functions held under CEDA. The City does not want to be constrained by the way things are done now, but rather will look forward to the Task Force s feedback. 1

2 The Task Force members present then introduced themselves: Sherry Neiswander, Owner and CEO of Anderson Neiswander Construction, specializing in seismic retrofits primarily for residential houses. Patricia Zamora, Housing Counseling Coordinator at Casa Justa/Just Cause, which is non-profit in Oakland and San Francisco providing counseling services to low-income tenants. Donna Gianoulis, Owner of Van Avery Construction in Oakland, specializing in foundations, framing, structural improvements and drainage work. Anne Bruff, owner of Anne Bruff & Associates, specializing in commercial property investments. Anne is also immediate past president of Oakland Association of Realtors. Ellen Lynch, Realtor with Better Homes and Gardens with previous as a general contractor specializing in restoration of homes in Oakland and ADA compliance. Alan Dones, managing general partner at Strategic Urban Development Alliance, general contractor and real estate developer. Ken Houston, principal of Turner Group Construction, signatory to the Plumbers, Carpenters and Laborers Union. Joe Keffer, SEIU Local 1021, member of the Central Labor Council, and has represented building inspectors in various other jurisdictions. Michelle Cassens, property inspector. Curtis Caton, principal at Payatok Architects in Oakland, specializing in affordable housing and residential projects of various kinds. Valerie Miles-Tribble (introduction took place later in the meeting, after Agenda Item #2). Lynette Lee (introduction took place later in the meeting, after Agenda Item #5). Ray Derania, Building Official and City Engineer, stated that the Task Force is necessary and positive, representing a broad base of interests that will be valuable going forward. 2. Procedures governing meetings Rich Illgen, Supervising Deputy City Attorney from the Oakland City Attorney s office reviewed the general requirements of Task Force meetings, as follows: As an ad-hoc committee, normally the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance would not apply. Due to Oakland s transparency commitment, these rules do apply, requiring that meetings be noticed 72 hours in advance with agendas published, and only agenda topics may be discussed during the meeting. As part of open meetings, the public may also have the opportunity to speak both in open forum and prior to voting on any motions. Staff is to provide the Task Force and the public with all written materials for 2

3 the meeting at least 72 hours prior. Roberts rules of order generally apply, although the Task Force is able to operate a little more loosely than a more formal legislative body. It is at the discretion of the Chair to determine the order of speakers and for how long they will speak. This committee was set up with limited purpose and limited time, and so the Task Force members should stay within the areas of discussion that they have been given. Rich reminded the Task Force members to fill out and return the Form 700, which disclose potential conflicts of interest. Mr. Dones asked if there is a minimum timeframe for which the public may speak. Mr. Illgen indicated that the time length is up to the discretion of the Chair, normally with specific time limits in place, but that the overall length of time for public speaking should be limited so that the Task Force may focus on its tasks. Question: Is there a general definition for conflict of interest? Answer: There is no general definition, since there are potentially various levels of conflict of interest, both direct and indirect. 3. Public comment Michael Banes asked that the Task Force focus their public policy decisions such that small, local businesses are able to grow their companies. John Claussen, attorney, offered to make himself available to Task Force members regarding how various policies and practices affect 4. Purpose and expectations Roles Amy Paul of Management Partners discussed her and Emily Lohr s role as facilitators. Management Partners helps to construct agendas with staff and the Task Force chair and provides meeting facilitation duties. Management Partners role is not to voice opinions or direct Task Force discussion, as that would be the role of the Task Force chair and its members. Management Partners will take care of the minutes and will show main discussion items via the easels in the room. Emily Lohr with Management Partners will serve as the main contact for the Task Force. Ms. Paul noted that Management Partners did produce a report regarding Building Services improvement opportunities, but will not be expressing any opinions about that to the Task Force. Margaretta Lin, representing the City Administrator, echoed her thanks to the Task Force for their service. She pointed out the unique opportunity to have a collaborative and well-informed process to guide the City during a time of major structural changes in its operations. Ms. Lin s role, via the City Administrator s Office, is to oversee the transformation of Building Services. 3

4 Timeline Ms. Lin discussed how the upcoming meetings are to focus on feedback on new program design and procedures/operations. The City does not want to limit the expertise of the task members, so any additional items that bear discussion will go into a parking lot of discussion topics. Ray Leon with Council President s office noted that the Task Force member s task is mainly to weigh in on the past, new ideas and ongoing improvements. The Council President s goal is to have the Task Force present their ideas to the Council, at which point the Council Members will consider their feedback. Ms. Lin noted that the City is on a time urgent mission due to public scrutiny and political accountability and because many problems in Oakland could be best served through more strategic application of Code Enforcement services. Future meeting dates and location The City proposes that there be three task force meetings: Orientation (this meeting) New program design Procedures and operations Through information received from the Task Force, staff will produce a comprehensive staff report to present to City Council. The Task Force may also choose to submit its own document to City Council. The City also envisions conducting one or two follow-up Task Force meetings in addition to those listed above to discuss additional items as needed. Mr. Dones indicated that a fourth meeting is tentatively scheduled. Mr. Dones proposed a meeting schedule change, resulting in a schedule as follows: February 29 th for the topic of new program design March 7 th for the topic of procedures and operations March 21 st for the first follow-up Task Force meeting The Task Force unanimously agreed to the above schedule. Mr. Leon noted that the meeting locations will vary from one meeting to the next, but the Task Force will be informed ahead of time so that they will know where to meet. Mr. Dones indicated that the March 7 th agenda should include an item that allows the Task Force to affirm their wish to have a follow-up meeting on March 21 st. 5. Review of orientation packet materials Staff reports and Council resolutions 4

5 Ms. Paul asked if any of the Task Force members had questions about the City staff reports and Council resolution included in their agenda packets. These items were intended as background information on the creation of the Task Force. Question: What is a prospective lien? Answer (Ray Derania): Code Enforcement records two types of liens: Priority (monetary amount) and prospective (non-financial encumbrance of title). The prospective lien serves as a warning the City has some type of enforcement action against the property. Prospective liens are no longer recorded on property title. Question: What does assistance to property owners refer to? Answer (Margaretta Lin): There are different types of property owners in need of resources that the City of its partners have available. There are public and private partnerships in place by which City employees may refer the public to the appropriate assistance or advice they require for solving a particular issue. In the past, Affordable Housing money was available for housing rehabilitation efforts. Answer (Ray Derania): The City is looking at different kinds of property owners, such as lenders who own foreclosed properties, to ensure that City money does not pay for their code enforcement services. The City is also putting in place measures by which disadvantaged property owners will not have burdensome processes and costs associated with code enforcement services. Question: Why did the City eliminate prospective liens? Are homeowners and investors treated the same? Answer (Ray Derania): It was the recommendation of the Council and the Grand Jury that the City stop placing prospective liens on property title. The opinion was that the prospective lien fee was very high and served as a deterrent for transfer of property ownership. Answer (Margaretta Lin): Staff still has a duty to disclose City enforcement action to anyone who might assume ownership of a property. The City is investigating constructive ways of doing this. Question: Prospective liens are useful, so was there some reason in particular that Council took them away? Answer (Margaretta Lin): It was a recommendation from the Grand Jury report, and there were concerns that it was a barrier to transfer of property. We will be taking this up in more detail in the session devoted to procedures and operations. Question: Where does the report come from that covers programs, and where does the report come from that covers procedures and operations? What are the logistics for giving the City Council a Task Force report? 5

6 Group norms Form 700 Answer (Margaretta Lin): We will provide a program design document 72 hours prior to the meeting on February 29 th. At that meeting, we will have a presentation and discussion. This same schedule applies for the meeting scheduled for March 7 th. Question: Are the reports in conjunction with outside consultants? Answer (Margaretta Lin): the County Public Health department and other partners looked at proactive inspection models from other jurisdictions around the country, which informed the report. Management Partners has done best practice research to compile information for City staff. This research information will be provided to Task Force members. Comment: Management Partners should disclose when they are facilitating or when they are discussing their work product. Ms. Paul referred to the Group Norms included in their packet and requested Task Force feedback. Question: What is a parking lot? Answer (Ms. Paul): This is for items brought up that are not on the agenda, but that bear further discussion and another meeting. Question: Every introduction at the table included some form of potential conflict. Is there any further advice about our conduct? Answer (Mr. Illgen): We would rather see the Form 700 from all Task Force members before making any determination or providing advice. The forms are public documents. Answer (Ms. Lin): Use your best judgment about what the public perception might be regarding your participation. Question: How are these meetings being advertised to the public so they may provide comment to the Task Force? Answer (Ray Leon): Homeowners should be here to speak on their own behalf, so we are going to be posting the agenda materials on a website. Stakeholders will be encouraged to come out to speak. There will be no conflict with them the Form 700 is more to determine if any Task Force members have a conflict with their service. Comment: The press is also waiting to know when meetings are going to take place. Question: What rules apply to Task Force members getting together. 6

7 Answer (Mr. Illgen): As a public body, you have to vote in public. A quorum would be seven Task Force members. This number constitutes a majority, which you cannot do outside of a meeting. This includes serial phone calls, s, and other communications that discuss Task Force business. Limit discussions of Task Force issues to just a few people. Comment: For group norms, #5 regarding respecting each other s talking time, we should formalize the flow so that people are not speaking out of turn. The Task Force agreed that members who wish to speak will raise a hand and wait to be acknowledged by the Chair, Mr. Dones. Ms. Paul asked if the Task Force wished to include anything in the Group Norms about conduct. The Task Force agreed to include an item about adhering to the Sunshine Ordinance. Management Partners will revise the Group Norms and provide copies for Task Force signature. 6. Transforming Building Services Presentation of recent program and process changes Ms. Lin briefly presented the process changes that the organization has undertaken, including the following main points: The City has been swift and proactive about making changes It is important to make changes through a collaborative process The City needs to ground itself in data The new model is intended to be proactive Ms. Lin s full presentation is available online as a part of this meeting s materials. Mr. Leon noted that the Task Force s role is not to put a stamp of approval on things that the City has done, but rather to offer their opinions and suggestions. Discussion of the opportunities before us Question: If we have comments on the presentation, where should we send them? Answer (Ms. Lin): Members can send comments to Mangemetn Partners or me. Comment: The City should provide information about its progress on each of these items. Question: Where should we send our questions about items? Answer (Mr. Illgen): You can send it to staff or to Management Partners, but you should not send discussion items out to the rest of the Task Force. Answer (Ms. Lin): Management Partners is to serve as the primary point of contact for the Task Force. 7

8 7. Adjourn Ms. Paul suggested that if Task Force members have agenda item suggestions, they should send them to Management Partners and incorporate them into planning the agenda. Question: When it comes back to us, is it identified who brought it up? Answer (Mr. Illgen): Everything the Task Force does is public record, including communications to a private consultant. Answer (Mr. Leon): Members may also discuss issues with the Council members. Comment: One of the Grand Jury findings was that there is no procedure manual. Part of the Task Force input is to affect the actual operations. Task Force members should not hesitate to correct operational matters. Comment: Non-procedural questions should be brought up in the group forum rather than with staff or Management Partners. Editorial questions should be kept within the context within them Task Force meetings. Question: Is it appropriate for members to discuss Task Force business with other members of the community? Answer (Mr. Dones): It is allowed as long as the rules of developing a quorum are not violated. Question: When the public comes to speak, what happens with their question? Answer (Mr. Illgen): It is up to the Task Force to determine how a question will be addressed. The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. 8