[00:00:06]
>> VIAGRAN: ALL RIGHT. THE TIME IS NOW 11:03 A.M. ON AUGUST 21ST,, -- 22ND, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE QUORUM. >> VIAGRAN: GREAT.
I WILL BE ALLOWING THE MEMBER SPEAKERS TWO ROUNDS OF COMMENTS PER ITEM WITH FIVE MINUTES THE FIRST ROUND AND THREE MINUTES THE SECOND ROUND.
THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. ARE THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? I'VE GOT A MOTION. CAN I GET A SECOND? I'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SIGNED UP TO SPEAK?
>> WE HAVE NONE. >> VIAGRAN: OKAY. ITEM 2 THROUGH 5 WE HAVE FOUR AUDITS TO ACCEPT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH ARE ITEMS 2, 3, 4 AND 5.
DOES THE COMMITTEE WISH TO HEAR ANY OF THESE AUDITS INDIVIDUALLY? IF YES -- NO? OKAY. CAN I GET A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THE AUDITS? I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AUDITS.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> VIAGRAN: IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE AUDITS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. ALL RIGHT.
NOW WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 6.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE READ THE CAPTION FOR ITEM 6. >> ITEM NUMBER 6 IS ACCEPTANCE OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY AUDITOR REPORT AU25 AU25-012 AUDIT OF DSD
DEMOLITIONS OF DANGEROUS PROPERTIES. >> GOOD MORNING.
I WAS THE AUDIT MANAGER FOR THIS PROJECT AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THE RESULTS OVER THE AUDIT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, DEMOLITION OF CHANGE JUST PROPERTIES.
OUR AUDIT OBJECTIVE WAS TO DETERMINE IF THE DEMOLITION OF DANGEROUS PROPERTIES WAS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND CITY REGULATIONS AS WELL AS WHETHER CONTRACT SERVICES WERE APPROPRIATELY MONITORED MONITORED.
OUR OVERALL CONCLUSION WAS THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT HAD EFFECTIVE CONTROLS IN PLACE TO ENSURE REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS VERIFICATIONS WERE PERFORMED IN CONFORMANCE WITH CITY MUNICIPAL CODE AND POLICIES.
ADDITIONALLY STD HAS SUFFICIENT PROCEDURES TO MAINTAIN THAT ITS OFFICERS MAINTAIN LICENSES AND HAVE THE REQUISITE TRAINING. WE DID HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT PERTAINS TO INSURANCE COVERAGE, DEMOLITION OVER OVERSIGHT.
TO NOW PROGRAM BACKGROUND, THEY PERFORM REVIEWS OF DANGEROUS PROPERTIES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC. THESE MIGHT BE IDENTIFIED THROUGH A VARIETY OF MEANS TO INCLUDE FIELD OBSERVATIONS PERFORMED BY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DANGEROUS PREMISES OFFICERS, REPORTS COULD ALSO BE RECEIVED FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR COMPLAINTS COULD BE MADE TO 311 CUSTOMER SERVICE.
ONCE THESE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS PROPERTIES ARE IDENTIFIED AND REFERRED TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THESE PROPERTIES UNDERGO A SERIES OF INSPECTIONS.
IF APPROPRIATE, CORRECTIVE ACTION IS NOT UNDERTAKEN. THESE CASES COULD ULTIMATELY BE PRESENTED TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD. THIS BOARD IS AUTHORIZED TO DECIDE ON THE OUTCOME OF THE PROPERTY. THIS COULD INCLUDE AN ORDER FOR REPAIR, AN ORDER FOR DEMOLITION OR THE CASE COULD BE SET FOR FURTHER REVIEW AT A LATER TIME TO PROVIDE THE PROPERTY OWNER MORE TIME TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.
THERE WERE 156 AND 140 DANGEROUS PROPERTIES DEMOLISHED DURING FISCAL YEARS '24 AND '25. BEFORE WE GET TO THE AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS, WE DID WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME POSITIVE RESULTS. WE DETERMINED THAT DSD WAS PERFORMING INITIAL INSPECTIONS BOTH TIMELY AND WAS DOCUMENTING RESULTS THOROUGHLY WITHIN THE SYSTEM OF RECORD. DSD ALSO ENSURES THAT NOTICES OF VIOLATION AND NOTICES TO VACATE ARE PLACED ON PROPERTIES AS APPLICABLE TO NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS. DSD ALSO CONFIRMS PROPERTY VACANCY AND VERIFYIES WHETHER
[00:05:01]
OWNER APPEALS APPLY PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH DEMOLITION ORDERS.AND FINALLY, DSD ENSURES THAT DP OFFICERS MAINTAIN CURRENT CODE ENFORCEMENT LICENSES AND ATTEND REQUIRED TRAINING TO MEET TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATION REQUIREMENTS. OUR FIRST RECOMMENDATION WAS OVER INSURANCE COVERAGE.
AT THE TIME OF THE AUDIT, DSD HAD A PROCESS IN PLACE TO MONITOR INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRIMARY DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR. IN EFFECT THIS CONTRACTOR DID NOT HAVE APPROPRIATE INSURANCE COVERAGE THEREFORE WE RECOMMENDED THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEVELOP CONTROLS TO ENSURE THAT ALL REQUIRED CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE BE OBTAINED, REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE AND RETAINED.
OUR NEXT RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR DEMOLITION PROGRAM OVER OVERSIGHT AS A WHOLE.
TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT HERE REGARDING THE WORK THAT WE DID, WE REVIEWED AN OVERALL SAMPLE OF 56 DEMOLITION CASES. THIS INCLUDED REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION FROM INCEPTION TO INCLUDE INITIAL INSPECTION DOCUMENTATION ALL THE WAY TO CONFIRMING THAT DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL HAD BEEN CLEARED ONCE THE DEMOLITION ORDER HAD BEEN EXECUTED. IN EFFECT WE DETERMINED THAT OVERSIGHT FOR THE DEMOLITION PROCESS WAS NOT BEING CONSISTENTLY PERFORMED.
SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED STEPS WERE EITHER NOT APPROPRIATELY EXECUTED OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION WAS INAPPROPRIATELY MAINTAINED WITHIN ASELLA, THE SYSTEM OF RECORD. THIS INCLUDES ITEMS THAT I'LL LIST OUT HERE SUBSEQUENTLY. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHILE FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS WERE PERFORMED, THESE WERE NOT BEING EXECUTED IN A TIMELY MANNER.
ADDITIONALLY WE IDENTIFIED SOME INSTANCES WHERE DEMOLITION PERMITS WERE NOT OBTAINED PRIOR TO DEMOLITION DEMOLITION. AND THIS WAS SPECIFIC TO OWNER-INITIATED DEMOLITIONS AS OWNERS ALSO HAVE THE OPTION TO PURSUE DEMOLITION ON THEIR OWN. WE ALSO DETERMINED THAT BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD DOCUMENTATION PACKETS WERE EITHER MISSING REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION OR DID NOT HAVE DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF REVIEWS. AND FINALLY, WE IDENTIFIED SOME ISSUES WITH DEMOLITION DEBRIS DISPOSAL. THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR PICTURES TO BE TAKEN AFTER THE DEMOLITION ORDER HAS BEEN EXECUTED TO CONFIRM THAT ALL DEBRIS HAS BEEN REMOVED. THIS WAS MISSING IN A COUPLE OF INSTANCES. ADDITIONALLY THERE WERE A COUPLE OF INSTANCES WHERE DEBRIS HAD REMAINED AND THAT WOULD HAVE WARRANTED THE NEED FOR A VACANT LOT CASE TO BE OPENED. THEREFORE WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THESE CONTROLS BE STRENGTHENED TO ENSURE THAT THESE REQUIREED STEPS ARE EXECUTED AND DOCUMENTED WITHIN ACCELLA AND FURTHERMORE THAT THE GUIDE BEING USED TO GOVERN THE DANGEROUS PREMISES PROGRAM BE UPDATEED AND TRAINING PROVIDED TO OFFICERS.
OUR NEXT RECOMMENDATION WAS OVER CASE PROGRESS. WE DETERMINED THAT DSD DID NOT ENSURE ONGOING DEMOLITION CASES WERE PROGRESSING IN A TIMELY MANNER. TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT HERE, WE LOOKED AT 25 ONGOING DEMOLITION CASES TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY EXCESSIVE PERIODS OF INACTIVITY.
FOR FIVE OF THE 25 THAT WE REVIEWED, ON AVERAGE THERE HAD NOT BEEN ACTIVITY FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE MONTHS. AND AGAIN, THIS IS SIGNIFICANT AS IT PROLONGS POTENTIAL SAFETY RISKS TO THE PUBLIC. SO WE RECOMMENDED THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IMPLEMENT CONTROLS TO ENSURE THAT ONGOING CASES BE ACTIVELY MONITORED, WORKED, AND THAT CASE NOTES BE UPDATEED UPDATEED IN ACCELLA TO SHOW THE WORK BEING PERFORMED BY THE OFFICERS.
WE ALSO HAD A RECOMMENDS OVER ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE. DSD DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT CONTROLS OVER THAT PROCESS AS A WHOLE. TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT HERE, THIS ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE STEMS FROM DSD RECOUP RATING THE COSTS OF DEMOLITIONS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS AFTER THE DEMOLITION HAS OCCURRED.
WE REVIEWED SAMPLES AND IDENTIFIED CONTRIBUTING FACTORS, WHICH INCLUDED INACCURATE AND UNTIMELY ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE REPORTING.
LIENS WERE NOT CONSISTENTLY PLACED ON PROPERTIES WITH PAST DEW DEMOLITION FEES.
COLLECTION EFFORTS WERE NOT PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITYWIDE DIRECTIVE ON ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND THERE WAS AN ABSENCE OF A WRITEOFF PROCESS.
WE SAW ACCOUNTS DATING BACK TO 1990. WHILE SOME MAY MERIT REMAINING IN HERE, PARTICULARLY IN INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS A LIEN ON THESE PROPERTIES, THIS DID HIGHLIGHT THE NEED FOR AN EVALUATION PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHEN SOME OF THESE ACCOUNTS MAY MERIT BEING WRITTEN OFF.
SO WE MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STRENGTHEN CONTROLS BY IMPLEMENTING ADDITIONAL OVER OVERSIGHT FOR THE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE PROCESS AS A WHOLE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE REPORTING, TIMELY LIEN PLACEMENT, INVOICING,
[00:10:02]
COLLECTION EFFORTS, WRITEOFF EVALUATION. AND FURTHERMORE, THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE PROCEDURES BE UPDATEED TO REFLECT THESE REQUIREMENTS AND BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE CITYWIDE ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIVE. OUR FINAL RECOMMENDATION PERTAINS TO USER ACCESS AS WE DETERMINED ACCESS TO THE AGENDA BUILDER SYSTEM WAS INAPPROPRIATE.THIS IS A SYSTEM THAT'S USED TO MAINTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS THEN PRESENTED FOR BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD HEARINGS. WE IDENTIFIED WITHDRAWN EMPLOYEES AS WELL AS A COUPLE OF DUPLICATE ACCOUNTS ACCOUNTS, SO WE RECOMMENDED THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IMPLEMENT CONTROLS TO ENSURE THAT USER ACCESS REVIEWS ARE PERFORMED, DOCUMENTED AND THAT ANY INAPPROPRIATE ACCESS BE ADDRESSED.
DSD AGREED WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND HAS SINCE DEVELOPED CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS TO ADDRESS THESE ITEMS WITH AN ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE OF JANUARY 2027. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, BUT BOTH MYSELF AND DSD ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> VIAGRAN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, ABIGAIL.
IS THERE A RESPONSE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT?
>> GOOD MORNING, CHAIR, COUNCIL. AMIR TOMÁS WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. AS ABIGAIL MENTIONED THERE ARE SOME FINDINGS AND THE ANTICIPATED GOAL IS TO COMPLETE THAT BY JANUARY JANUARY 2027.
OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THEN, SO SINCE THAT TIME, FOR EXAMPLE, IN REGARDS TO THE INSURANCE ISSUE, WE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT.
WE CREATED A PROCESS AND WE IDENTIFIED A MANAGER WITHIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO BE MANAGING ALL THE ACCOUNTS AND MAKING SURE ALL THE INSURANCE IS UP TO DATE ON ALL OUR ACCOUNTS CONTRACTS, NOT JUST THE DEMOLITION CONTRACT, SO THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. WE DID CONDUCT MULTIPLE TRAININGS WITH DANGEROUS PREMISES OFFICERS AND WE UPDATEED OUR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND WE MADE SURE THAT THEY'RE ALL TRAINED ON IT AND THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS SO NOW WE WILL HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION IN OUR SYSTEM OF RECORD.
AND WITH THE AGENDA BUILDER SOFTWARE THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, WE DID MANAGE TO PUT A PROCESS TOGETHER AND NOW WE WILL REVIEW IT ON MONTHLY BASIS TO MAKE SURE NOBODY'S IN THE SYSTEM THAT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE SYSTEM. THE ONE THING WITH THAT SYSTEM IS IF YOU DON'T HAVE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO EMAIL ADDRESS, YOU CANNOT ACCESS IT EITHER WAY. BUT EVEN WITH THAT WITHIN THE CITY ANYMORE OR DOESN'T HAVE -- DOESN'T NEED THAT ACCESS.
WE ARE AUDITING THAT ON MONTHLY BASIS AND MAKING SURE NOBODY HAS ACCESS TO THE SYSTEM OR EVEN IN THE SYSTEM IF THEY DON'T HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT OR THEY
DON'T NEED THAT ACCESS. >> COUNCILMAN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GO OVER THAT AS WELL. IF WE COULD THINK ABOUT THIS THIS, IT WAS OUTLINED BY THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE IN THE SAME SPOT.
WE RECEIVE A 311 CALL OR FIRE DEPARTMENT OR PROACTIVE CODE INSPECTION IDENTIFIES A DANGEROUS PROPERTY, RIGHT? AND WE GO AND TAKE ACTION TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFER BY EITHER DEMOING OR SECURING OR THE OWNER DEMOS OR SECURES, RIGHT? SO THAT LEADS TO MONEY THAT WE'RE OWED. IN THE CASE OF HOMESTEADS, WE CANNOT PLACE A LOGIN THAT PROPERTY, SO IF SOMEONE HAS HOMESTEADED THEIR PROPERTY THAT'S MONEY THAT IS MORE THAN LIKELY NOT GOING TO BE RECOVERABLE, SO WE JUST WANT TO BE HONEST ABOUT IT. WE'LL PURSUE IT, BUT THERE'S NOT A LEGAL MEANS FOR US TO HAVE A LEVER TO TRY AND GET THAT MONEY BACK. BEYOND THAT, THERE ARE MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE PERHAPS DON'T HAVE CLEAR TITLE ISSUES SO THERE'S NOT CLARITY ON THE OWNER SO THERE'S SOME ISSUES IN RECOVERING THE MONEY THAT WAY. THERE'S SOMETIMES ABSENTEE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE NOT PRESENT SO SOME OF THE LIENS ARE NOT RECOVERABLE. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS TO UPDATE OUR INTERNAL PROCEEDS AND FOLLOWS TO FOLLOW THE AD THAT THE AUDITOR MENTIONED SO THAT WE CAN PROPERLY ACCOUNT FOR WHAT WE'RE OWED AND TRY TO RECOVER IT.
BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT SOME OF IT IS NOT GOING TO BE RECOVERABLE.
I DON'T WANT TO MISINFORM YOU. I THINK THE REALITY IS A BUNCH OF THAT MONEY IS NOT GOING TO COME BACK TO US. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFER. WE'LL CONTINUE TO PURSUE IT. WE'VE UPDATEED TO BE IN LINE WITH THE AD SO WE CAN TRY TO RECOVER AND PROPERLY WRITE WRITEOFF WHEN WE NEED TO.
THERE ARE SOME PIECES OF THIS THAT WE'LL WRITE OFF, BUT THEN CONTINUE DOWN THE LEGAL PATH TO TRY AND GET IT BACK AND MAYBE WE'LL BE SUCCESSFUL, BUT I JUST WANT
[00:15:03]
THERE TO BE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE IS CONTINUE TO HOLD NEIGHBORHOODS AS A PLACE THAT ARE PROTECTED AND ARE SAFE AND WE'LL KEEP TRYING TO PURSUE THE MONEY SIDE AS WELL. THANK YOU.>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU AND THANK YOU FOR THE AUDIT, ABIGAIL.
I THINK YOU FOUND SOME -- Y'ALL DID A GOOD JOB IN HIGHLIGHTING WHAT IS POSITIVELY HAPPENING AND WHERE WE NEED TO MAKE -- MAKE SOME CHANGES WITH SOME VERY THOUGHTFUL RECOMMENDATIONS. THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE AS WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TO REMEMBER IS WE KEEP ON HAVING AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND AGING HOMES, BUT ON THE OTHER END WE KNOW THAT BEST, THE MOST AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ME IS EXISTING HOUSING. SO THERE'S THIS-- THERE'S THIS POINTED OF CAN WE GET THEM BEFORE THEY BECOME DANGEROUS PROPERTIES. SO DO WE READILY AVAILABLE HAVE APPENDIX A, THE DSD PROCESS FLOW? CAN YOU PUT THAT UP ON THE SCREEN? IS IT AVAILABLE? I KNOW IT WAS IN OUR PACKET.
IF WE DON'T HAVE IT, IF MY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WANT TO LOOK IN, IT'S PAGE 13 ON THE REPORT. AS WE LOOK FOR STANDARD AND OWNER DEMOLITION PROCESS, THERE'S 10 STEPS FOR EMERGENCY DEMOLITION. THERE'S NINE STEPS.
I'M GLAD YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO IMPLEMENT THESE CONTROLS, BUT I THINK THERE MAY BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL TO ACTUALLY PUT HOW LONG THIS PROCESS IS GOING TO TAKE, IF IT'S GOING TO BE A YEAR LONG PROCESS OR IF IT IS GOING TO BE A TWO-YEAR LONG PROCESS FOR THE STANDARD AND OWNER DEMOLITION PROCESS.
SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE ARE 10 STEPS. IF WE READ THERE IT'S LIKE 30 DAYS LATER, UP TO SIX MONTHS, TWO PLUS MONTHS, 60 DAYS, AND THAT IS WHERE A LOT OF THAT PROPERTY OR THAT IS HOUSE CONTINUES TO DETERIORATE AND CONTINUES TO BE A BLIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTSS AND THE NEIGHBORS. I THINK AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND MAKE THESE ADJUSTMENTS, IMPLEMENT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, AMIN, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS CAN WE GET TWO THINGS TO GO AT ONCE.
WHAT I'M GOING TO NEED FROM BOTH YOU IS THE STAFF -- THE STAFFING YOU HAVE, IS IT ADEQUATE ENOUGH TO DO THAT AND THE STAFFING HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAS FOR THAT FIRST FIGURE. EMERGENCY DEMOLITION PROCESS PROCESS, AS YOU LOOK AT THE RECOMMENDATION AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SIGNIFICANT COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNCIL OFFICES. I KNOW WE'VE HAD AT LEAST TWO TO THREE IN DISTRICT 3 THAT HAVE GOTTEN DONE, FIRES FIRES, OTHER CARS HITTING HOMES OR VACANT PROPERTIES. QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY. BUT NOW LOOKING AT THE AUDIT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IS LIKE HOW DO WE RECOUP OUR DOLLARS THERE AND DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE BUDGET IMPACT WHEN THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A LOT OF OUT OF TOWN LANDLORDS. MY QUESTION TO YOU RIGHT NOW IS DO WE HAVE DESIGNATIONS WHERE IT'S LIKE THIS IS A DSD CASE THAT'S COME TO US ON THE STANDARD OWNER DEMOLITION PROCESS AND DO WE CATEGORIZE THEM AS AN 17EE LANDLORDS -- ABSENTEE WILLED WILLED. DO WE HAVE THAT DESIGNATION SOMEWHERE?
>> WE DO HAVE THE INFORMATION. OBVIOUSLY OUR GOAL IS THE SAFETY SO WE ARE LOOKING AT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IF IT'S DELABTATED OR NOT IS REALLY OUR MASTER PLAN GOAL. WE DO HAVE WITHIN OUR DOCUMENTATION IF IT'S OWNER OCCUPIED OR NOT, IF IT'S TENANT OCCUPIED, IF IT'S VACANT, WE DO HAVE THE OWNER INFORMATION SO WE CAN COLLECT THAT INFORMATION TO SEE IF THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN OR NOT. THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AVAILABLE.
WE DON'T PHYSICALLY TRACK IT IT. LIKE I CAN'T RUN REPORT THE SECOND TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION, BUT WE DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
>> VIAGRAN: THE OTHER ISSUE IS CODE IS THE ONE THAT GOES OUT AND FIRST DOES THE INITIAL CHECK ON THESE PROPERTIES, CORRECT? AS I THINK ABOUT DISTRICT 3
[00:20:04]
SPECIFICALLY AND OF COURSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT STAFFING ISSUES WITH CODE IS THEY GO OUT TO THESE PROPERTIES, BUT THEN THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER CALLS THEY'RE GETTING FOR OTHER VIOLATIONS SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A SPECIALIZED TEAM OR IF WE NEED TO DESIGNATE THAT SO THAT WE ARE, AS THE RECOMMENDATION STATED, WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE IMPLEMENTING AND COMING BACK AND GETTING ALL THE NECESSARY WORK, ESPECIALLY WHEN DSD GETS INVOLVED BECAUSE THAT COMMITTEE WORKS REALLY HARD AND I KNOW THAT THEIR SCHEDULES FOR THE HEARINGS IS PRETTY PACKED.SOME MONTHS WE'RE LIKE THERE'S THREE DISTRICT 3 CASES, SOMETIMES NONE OF THEM MAKE IT AND I'M THINKING WHY ISN'T THIS ONE ON THERE? BUT I KNOW IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING CITYWIDE AT THESE CASES.
SO I THINK THAT REALLY LOOKING AT THAT, THE PROCESS AND THE FLOW, AND GETTING A TIMELINE FOR ACTUALLY CALENDAR MONTHS AND DAYS ON THAT PROJECT IS GOING TO BE KEY AS WE MOVE FORWARD. I UNDERSTAND, JOHN, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ALL OUR MONEY BACK, BUT I DO THINK MY CONCERN PRIMARILY IS OUT OF TOWN LANDLORDS BECAUSE THOSE HAVE BEEN THE HARDEST TO GET AHOLD OF. AND THEN OUT OF TOWN HOLDS THAT HAVE OUT OF TOWN MANAGEMENT COMPANIES BECAUSE WE RAN INTO THAT ALSO.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING AN UPDATE, I GUESS, VIA COMMITTEE ON HOW THIS PROCESS IS GOING AND THEN HAVING A LARGER CONVERSATION IN B SESSION ABOUT HOW WE LOOK AT THE TIMELINE AND IF WE COULD POSSIBLY START IN THE STANDARD AND OWNER DEMOLITION PROCESS, START THAT HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW AT THE SAME TIME WE START THE 30 DAYS LATER INSPECTION FOR SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES.
BUT AGAIN, I'D LIKE THE STAFFING BECAUSE WHAT THAT TAKES -- BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S A LOT. IT'S A LOT OF WORK FOR OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT THAT.
AND THAT WE HAVE A I BIGGER PICTURE OF WHERE THESE -- THE DEMOLITION CASES ARE COMING FROM. I KNOW THEY'RE COMING FROM DISTRICT 3.
I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE COMING FROM THE OTHER DISTRICTS, BUT I KNOW THAT MY COMMITTEE MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SHARE TOO SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH COME MEZA
GONZÁLEZ COUNCILMEMBER MEZA GONZÁLEZ. >> WE WILL DEFINITELY LOOK AT THE OVERALL FLOWCHART AND WE WILL TRY TO STREAMLINE IT MORE, BUT ON BIG PICTURE, TODAY BASED ON ALL THE DUE PROCESS WE NEED TO GO THROUGH AND THE THINGS WE NEED TO ISSUE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE FASTEST IS THINGS MONTHS AND THE LONGEST IS ABOUT 18 MONTH. AND THE REASON FOR THAT BIG GAP IS IF SOMEBODY HAS A HARDSHIP WITHIN OUR ORDINANCES AND CODES, WE NEED TO GIVE THEM UP TO NINE NINE-MONTH PASS TO ALLOW THEM TO REPAIR THE PROPERTY IF THEY NEED TO.
SO IT COMES FROM SIX MONTHS TO 18 MONTH TOTAL BECAUSE YOU NEED TO ISSUE ON TOP OF THE NINE MONTH ADDITIONAL NOTICES AFTER THAT AND HAVE ADDITIONAL MEETING WITH THEM THEM. SO IT GOES BETWEEN SIX MONTHS A TO 18 MONTHS.
YOU DID MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT SPECIALIZED TEAM. WE DO HAVE SPECIFICALLY DANGEROUS PREMISES OFFICERS, WE HAVE 13 OF THEM CITYWIDE. THEY HANDLE THESE CASES.
SO IN GENERAL IF AREA OFFICER FINDS A DELABTATED STRUCTURE OR WE GET A 311 CALL OR CALL FROM COUNCIL, NORMALLY THE AREA OFFICER WILL RESPOND FOR FIRST.
AND IF THEY NOTICE THAT THIS CASE OR THIS STRUCTURE IS DILAPIDATED THEY TRANSFER IT TO DANGEROUS PREMISES OFFICER WHO HANDLES THE CASE FROM THAT POINT ALL THE WAY
UNTIL THE FINISH. >> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU FOR THAT.
I KNEW THE 18 MONTHS BECAUSE THAT'S OUR AVERAGE IN DISTRICT 3 BUT I'M GLAD YOU CLARIFIED IT FOR THE REST OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. AND I KNEW THAT -- THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THE TEAM. THE ONE THING THAT WE SEE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF MY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IT IS MY EVERYDAY CODE OFFICERS THAT GET THE BRUNT OF IT AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETINGS FOR THESE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES.
SO I APPRECIATE ALL THEIR HARD WORK AND PERFORMING INFORM KEEPING US UPDATEED.
THIS IS A GOOD CONVERSATION AND WE'LL HAVE COUNCILMEMBER MEZA GONZÁLEZ ASK SOME
QUESTIONS. >> GONZÁLEZ: THANK YOU, CHAIR.
THANK YOU TO THE AUDIT TEAM FOR THE WORK IN GETTING THIS REPORT.
JUST A FEW QUESTIONS, AND THANK YOU TO DSD FOR -- I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT
[00:25:05]
Y'ALL ARE DOING TO HAVE YOUR CONTROLS IN PLACE AND ENSURE THAT THE NECESSARY STEPS ARE TAKEN. ON SLIDE 6 IS SAYS THAT THE REQUIRED STEPS FOR THE DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT OR NOT UNDER UNDERTAKEN AND I READ THAT OF THE CASES THAT AUDIT LOOKED AT, I THINK THERE WAS EIGHT OF THESE WERE UNPERMITTED. THESE WERE ALL OWNER DEMOLITIONS, CORRECT?>> YES, MA'AM. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE CORRECTED WITHIN OUR PROCESS IS WE NEED TO FOLLOW UP AND MAKE SURE IF THE OWNER WANTS TO DEMO THE
STRUCTURE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY PULL THE PERMIT. >> GONZÁLEZ: AND OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW THE SAFETY CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DO THIS WITHOUT A PERMANENT, YOU KNOW, SAFETY, FINANCIAL, LEGAL, ALL OF THESE CONSEQUENCES.
ARE THERE ANY FINES ASSOCIATED WITH? >> ANY WORK DONE IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO WITHOUT PERMIT, YES, THERE IS A FINE FOR THAT AND WE ISSUE A NOTICE FIRST AND THEN WE ISSUE A CITATION FOR WORK OW PERMIT.
>> GONZÁLEZ: DOES THIS FALL IN A SEPARATE CATEGORY AS FAR AS DEMOLITION IS
CONCERNED OR IS IT JUST PART OF A GENERAL -- >> IT'S PART OF GENERAL,
WORK OW PERMIT. >> GONZÁLEZ: OKAY. CAN YOU SHARE THAT WITH ME
AT SOME POINT? JUST EMAIL ME WHAT THAT IS? >> YES, MA'AM.
>> GONZÁLEZ: AND THEN I GUESS YOU KIND OF ANSWERED THIS, BUT A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT HOW YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO ENFORCE THE PROPER PERMITTING PROCEDURES.
>> NORMALLY AGAIN WITH OUR CONTRACTOR, WE HAVE A DEMO CONTRACTOR, IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE DEMOLITION THEY OBTAIN THE PERMITS AND WE MAKE SURE THEY HAVE IT.
WHEN WE HAVE AN OWNER THAT IS STATING THAT THEY WILL DO THE DEMOLITION OR THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY DOES THE DEMOLITION, IN THE PAST PRIOR TO THIS AUDIT, WE DID NOT CHECK PHYSICALLY ON EACH ONE TO MAKE SURE THEY PULLED PERMITS.
FROM NOW ON THAT IS WITHIN OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE.
SO WE WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THE PERMIT IS THERE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE
DEMOLITION. >> GONZÁLEZ: YEAH. AND I MEET WITH MY APPOINTEES QUARTERLY AND MY APPOINTEE TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD BRINGS THIS UP A LOT AND REALLY ABOUT THAT ASSISTANCE WE'RE OFFERING THE OWNERS IN CASES WHERE THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THOSE PROPER DEMOLITION PERMANENTS.
SHE'S ONLY BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR A YEAR AND SHE IMMEDIATELY HAS SEEN THAT ENOUGH TIMES WHERE SHE'S FLAGGED THAT FOR OUR OFFICE AND JUST, YOU KNOW, REALLY WONDERING, GOD, IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO OR I FEEL LIKE SOMETHING IS MISSING HERE AND MAYBE IT'S AN I DON'T KNOW, BUT MAYBE IT WOULD BE A GOOD, I GUESS, PART OF THIS IS JUST IF THERE COULD BE AN UPDATE GIVEN TO THE BUILDING
STANDARDS BOARD I THINK WITH ACTIONS THAT YOU'RE TAKING. >> GOOD IDEA.
WE WILL DEFINITELY DO THAT. >> GONZÁLEZ: THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> VIAGRAN: COUNCILMAN WHYTE.
>> WHYTE: THANKS, CHAIR. THANK Y'ALL TO THE AUDIT TEAM FOR THIS.
OBVIOUSLY SOME ISSUES HERE THAT HAVE TO GET CORRECTED, INCLUDING ISSUES THAT MAY AFFECT THE CITY'S BOTTOM LINE IN TERMS OF DOLLARS. AND SO WE'VE GOT TO GET THAT CLEANED UP. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ON THE PUBLIC SAFETY SIDE, WHAT -- WHAT'S REALLY CAUSING THE DELAYS DELAYS DELAY DEMOLITION OF THESE PROPERTIES? STAFFING, LEGAL, CONTRACTOR AVAILABILITY?
>> COUNCILMAN, I THINK THAT THERE'S A VERY PRESCRIBED SET OF DAYS AND PROCESS BOTH WITHIN OUR CODE AND WITHIN THE LAWS THAT EXIST IN THIS STATE THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW FOLLOW, RIGHT? SO THAT CAN FEEL LONG. AND SO ARE THERE SOME WAYS THAT MAYBE WE COULD SAVE A FEW DAYS? ABSOLUTELY.
BUT THERE'S NOT A WAY TO DRAMATICALLY DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET TO A FULL DEMO OF A DANGEROUS PROPERTY, RIGHT? SO THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THE FLOWCHART THAT YOU SEE THAT WE MIGHT CAN WORK ON, BUT THERE ARE SOME BIGGER BLOCKS THAT ARE IN CODE, AND THEY WANT ME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE TO MENTION THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE THE OWNERS DUE PROCESS AND MAKE SURE WE'RE SET UP SO WE'RE NOT LEGALLY LIABLE IF HE WE DON'T FOLLOW THAT DUE PROCESS. MAYBE SHE WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
>> WHYTE: HOW DO WE LOOK FROM THE TIME FROM CASE INITIATION TO DEMOLITION
BETWEEN NOW AND FIVE YEARS PRIOR? >> SORRY, I WAS LOOKING BACK BACK. HOW DO WE LOOK AT BETWEEN NOW AND FIVE YEARS PRIOR?
>> WHYTE: YEAH, IN TERMS OF TIME FROM BEGINNING TO END.
[00:30:04]
>> LIKE THE OVERALL TREND OF TIME?
>> WHYTE: IS IT TAKING LONGER TO GET THESE THINGS DEMOLISHED THAN IT WAS FIVE
YEARS AGO? >> I THINK IT'S SIMILAR, BUT WE COULD DO THE EXACT ANALYSIS. I DON'T HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I THINK IT'S SIMILAR. >> WHYTE: OKAY. >> GO AHEAD.
>> >> GOOD GOOD MORNING. COUNCILMEMBER, TO WHYTE, SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE THE DAWN OF MAN, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE DEMOLITIONS ARE ACTUALLY OCCURRING QUICKER OVER THE 20 YEARS I'VE BEEN CODE'S ATTORNEY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE- FIVE-YEAR HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A BIG DELAY AND BACKLOG BECAUSE 2020, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT DURING COVID SUSPENDED ALL DEADLINES, AND WHAT THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT WAS OWNERS DID NOT HAVE TO FILE THEIR APPEALS WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING A DEMOLITION ORDER, AND THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. SO I BELIEVE THEY FIRST ISSUED IN APRIL 2020.
THEY DID NOT LIFT THE SUSPENSION OF THE DEADLINE UNTIL ABOUT FALL 2021.
ANY ACTION DURING THAT TIME FRAME. >> WHYTE: GOT IT.
>> I DID WANT TO OFFER WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE A REVIEW AND IF THERE'S ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT MIGHT BE BEYOND OUR CONTROL AT THE STATE LEVEL, WE COULD OFFER YOU OUR THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT AND YOU COULD UNDERSTAND IT. AND IF THERE'S PERHAPS A CHANGE IN LAW THAT COULD HAPPEN, THAT YOU'D WANT TO BE INTERESTED IN, WE'LL
SHARE THAT WITH YOU. >> WHYTE: SURE. JUST TWO MORE THINGS.
INTERIM SAFETY MEASURES THAT WE TAKE FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN SITTING THERE FOR SIX-PLUS MONTHS, WHAT DO WE DO? FENCING, OTHER SORT OF
THINGS LIKE THAT? >> AMIN CAN SPEAK IN MORE DETAIL, BUT THINK ABOUT SECURING THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, SO WINDOWS, DOORS, ANY OPENINGS.
SOMETIMES IT INCLUDES THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY IF THERE'S LARGER THINGS
HAPPENING ON THE PROPERTY. >> WHYTE: SO WE HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE TO MAKE
SURE THAT HAPPENS. >> ABSOLUTELY. IN SOME CASES IT'S NOT A DEMO CASE. THE DANGEROUS PROPERTY IS JUST SECURED IF WE BELIEVE, TO COUNCILWOMAN VIAGRAN'S POINT, IF THE STRUCTURE CAN BE REPAIRED AND REUSED, WE
HOPE FOR THAT POINT. >> WHYTE: LAST QUESTION. WHAT IS THE OUTSTANDING BALANCE OWED ON THESE DEMOLITIONS AND HOW MUCH IS REALISTICALLY COLLECTIBLE?
>> I THINK THE NUMBER IDENTIFIED IN THE AUDIT IS RIGHT AT FIVE MILLION DOLLARS, COUNCILMAN. SO IN REALITY OVER TIME ABOUT 15 TO 20% OF THAT IS INITIALLY RECOVERED, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY IS NOT. SOME OF IT WE CANNOT PLACE A LIEN, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, ON THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES.
UPDATE OUR PROCEDURES BASED ON THE AUDIT DIRECTLY, BUT WE CAN'T FORCE BY LIEN.
THE REST ARE IN THE SENSE OF A PROCESS AS YOU HEARD OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS TRYING TO WORK TO RESOLVE. WE'LL CONTINUE TO DO THAT, BUT OUR EXPERIENCE SAYS A
BUNCH OF THAT IS NOT RECOVERABLE. >> WHYTE: WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT BUDGETING PURPOSES OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS, WE CAN EXPECT MAYBE A
MILLION OF THAT MONEY TO COME BACK? >> SOMEWHERE IN THAT CHANGE.
>> WHYTE: THANKS, CHAIR. >> VIAGRAN: COMMUNITY MEMBER TAINO.
>> THIS IS CLEARLY A VERY HIGHLY COMPLEX OPERATION THAT DSD IS RUNNING.
CLEARLY IT'S VERY COMPLEX. THERE'S A LOT OF LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS AND RISK CONSIDERATIONS. DO YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED FROM THE GREATER CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, US, AUDITORS, WHOMEVER, FINANCE? IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN LEND TO HELP YOU CLOSE THE GAP ON THESE CONTROLS? BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO IT IS SOMETHING I REMEMBERED BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY CONTROL FACETS AND I THINK IT'S ALL TIED TO THE COMPLEXITY OF YOUR SPACE.
I KNOW CHAIR HAD ASKED IS THERE A PERSONNEL TYPE OF ASPECT WE COULD CONSIDER? I'M JUST ASKING SINCE WE HAVE YOU IN THE ROOM, IS THERE ANY SUPPORT WE CAN GIVE YOU TO REMOVING THESE NUMEROUS BARRIERS? BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ALONE, OBVIOUSLY. WE'VE TURNED INTO A HELP GROUP, RIGHT, YOU ARE NOT ALONE, TAKE MY HAND. OKAY, I'LL STOP. [LAUGHTER].
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I FEEL WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF STAFF FOR DANGEROUS PREMISES OFFICERS. WE DO HAVE THE PROCESS AS
[00:35:03]
YOU MENTIONED. IT'S REALLY TEDIOUS, IT'S COMPLICATED BECAUSE WE HAVE STATE LAWS, WE HAVE LOCAL ORDINANCES WE HAVE TO FOLLOW FOLLOW.AND IF WE MISS ANYTHING, LIKE WAS SAID EARLIER, DUE PROCESS, THEY SLAP US ON THE HAND AND SAY START OVER, YOU DID NOT DO THIS OFFICE ON TIME OR YOU DELAYED THE NOTICE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO IT IS A TEDIOUS PROCESS.
OVERALL WE ARE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB. NOW, WITH THE AUDIT FINDINGS AND THE TWEAKS WE ARE DOING, I THINK WE WILL IN BETTER SHAPE AND I THINK WE ARE
OKAY. >> VIAGRAN: IF THERE ISN'T A SECOND ROUND CAN I GET A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THE AUDIT? I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL OPPOSED SAY NO. MOTION CARRIES. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE READ THE
CAPTION FOR ITEM 7. >> ITEM NUMBER 7 IS A STATUS UPDATE OF OUTSTANDING
MANAGEMENT ACTION PLANS FOR PRIOR AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS. >> VIAGRAN: ALL RIGHT.
BUDDY, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? >> YES, MA'AM.
BUDDY VARGAS, CITY AUDITOR. I'LL BE PRESENTING THE SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT RESPONSE RECOMMENDATIONS. PERIODICALLY WE PRESENT THIS THIS.
WE FOLLOW UP ON EACH ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE ON EACH ONE OF OUR AUDITS.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS THAT WE START THIS REVIEW. FIRST OFF, THE DRIVERS COMPLETION DATE, HOWEVER THERE'S AN OVERLAP. WE DO WAIT UNTIL THE AUDIT'S BEEN COMPLETE HERE AT THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING, SO THERE ARE CERTAIN COMPLETION DATES THAT MAY PREDATE THE PRESENTATION HERE TODAY. THE EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THERE'S SOME AUDITS TODAY THAT MAY HAVE A COMPLETION DATE PRIOR TO AUGUST.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT NOTE. SECONDLY, WE ALSO GIVE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROCESS TO RUN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S TRANSACTION BASED. SO WE TAKE A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE.
FINALLY, THERE ARE SOME AUDITS ON THIS DOCUMENT, THIS PRESENTATION, THAT WE MAY CONSIDER TO REAUDIT. WE HAVEN'T FINALIZED A 2027 AUDIT PLAN.
THAT WILL BE PRESENTED IN THE OCTOBER AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING SO I WANTED TO MAKE THAT NOTE ALSO. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT IS WE MAY CHANGE OUR METHODOLOGY ON HOW WE REVIEW THE FOLLOW-UP, IF IT'S GOING TO HAVE A FULL REAUDIT.
OUR PROCESS IS MANAGEMENT ASSERTION, SO TOTALLY WE HAD 56 RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE DO MEET WITH MANAGEMENT AND THEY GIVE US THE RESULTS WHETHER ITS COMPLETE, ON SCHEDULE OR BEHIND SCHEDULE. WHEN IT'S BEHIND SCHEDULE WE DO ASK FOR A NEW ESTIMATED TARGET DATE. OUT OF THE 56, WE GO IN AND WE REVIEW THESE PROCESSES, WE DETERMINE THEY'RE EITHER VERIFIED WITHOUT EXCEPTIONS. THAT MEANS IT WAS IMPLEMENTED AS INTENDED, VERIFIED WITH EXCEPTION, THAT MEANS IT WASN'T VERIFIED BY OUR REVIEW AND THEN WE HAVE VERIFICATION PENDING.
THERE ARE A FEW REASONS WHY VERIFICATION PENDING AND WHAT IMPACTS THAT CATEGORY, ONE IS IT'S IN PROCESS. TWO, THERE'S ALSO PARTIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN ONE, SO FOR EXAMPLE, TWO OUT OF THE THREE PARTS MAY HAVE BEEN QUESTION MEANTED AND ONE STILL PENDING. AND FINALLY, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THESE ARE THE ONES WHERE WE LET THEM RUN FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS BEFORE WE TAKE A SAMPLE.
THEY MAY BE ON OUR LIST BUT WE HAVEN'T STARTED THE REVIEW.
I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND ANY REAL-TIME ON EACH ONE OF THESE.
WHAT I DID WANT TO IN SUMMARY PRESENT IS OVERALL THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS WORKING AS INTENDED. THE INDICATOR HERE IS THE FIRST TWO OR THREE SLIDES YOU'LL SEE THAT THEY'RE PREDOMINANTLY BLUE AND THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD LOOK BECAUSE OUR REPORT DATE IS THE WAY WE CATEGORIZE THIS PRESENTATION, SO THE OLDER ONES SHOULD BE IN BLUE BLUE. I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT THE NEXT PRESENTATION, IF EACH ONE OF THEM ARE IN BLUE, THEY GET REMOVED, SO OUR PRIOR PRESENTATION, IF THEY WERE IN BLUE, THE ENTIRE AUDIT WERE BLUE, WE REMOVE THOSE BECAUSE THIS PRESENTATION WOULD BE EXTREMELY LONG.
THEN WHEN YOU GET TO THE LAST COUPLE OF SLIDES, YOU'LL SEE MORE YELLOW, WHICH IS INDICATIVE OF THE MORE CURRENT AUDITS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED, AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE WORK AND ALSO HOW THE CITY WORKS.
SO UNIVERSAL THE ASSESSMENT IS THE CITY IS RESPONDING TO RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
>> VIAGRAN: THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? THIS ITEM IS FOR BRIEFING ONLY. YES.
[00:40:02]
>> TAINO: I'M SUPER EXCITED WHEN YOU PULL UP THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET.
I NEED TO EXPAND MY INTERESTS. FOR THOSE THAT ARE DELAYED, DO YOU HAVE AN INTERNAL VERSION OF THAT THAT SHOWS KIND OF HOW MANY ITERATIONS THAT DELAY HAS UNDERGONE, IF IT'S LIKE A LONG-STANDING DELAY, IF IT'S A REPEAT BEFORE IT AGES OUT. AND WOULD YOUR TEAM BE ABLE TO DIG INTO THAT IF NEEDED?
>> WE DON'T -- HERE'S THE PROBABLY CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, A FEW OF THESE CHANGEED SINCE OUR FIRST PRESENTATION. THE AUDIT COMMITTEE MEETING GOT RESCHEDULED TWICE, SO EVEN IN THAT TIME FRAME SOME OF THESE RESULTS WERE YELLOW YELLOW, THEY TURNED BLUE. SOME WERE YELLOW. ONE WAS YELLOW AND TURNED RED OBVIOUSLY. WE DON'T KEEP EACH ONE OF THOSE ITERATIONS.
WE CAN PROBABLY -- THERE COULD BE A GOAL TO KEEP ITERATIONS BY PRESENTATION LIKE HOW MANY TIMES IT'S BEEN ON HERE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE LAST TIME WE PRESENTED IT, IS IT STILL ON HERE? WE CAN PROBABLY DO THAT.
BUT THESE THINGS ARE -- THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE TODAY ALSO, RIGHT? WE UPDATE OUR MATRIX AT LEAST WEEKLY AS THESE STEPS GET COMPLETED.
SO WE DON'T KEEP THOSE ITERATIONS, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY TRY IF NEEDED, TRY TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR AN EXTENDED AMOUNT OF TIME.
>> TAINO: THAT MAKES SENSE. I WAS CURIOUS IF WE COULD SEE SPIKES FOR CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS OVER TIME THAT COULD HELP US IN OUR OVER OVERSIGHT IN THIS COMMITTEE IN CASE SOMETHING REARS ITS HEAD AGAIN IN FIVE YEARS OR WHATNOT.
THANK YOU. >> VIAGRAN: ANY OTHER MEMBERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SO AT THIS TIME THANK YOU, BUDDY.
AND BUDDY AND TRICIA AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING. WE ARE GOING TO WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO LOOK AT THIS LIST AND HAVE OUR COMMUNITY MEMBER THAT IS A CIVILIAN HELP WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENTS AND THE CITY MANAGER'S TEAM REGARDING MEETING THESE QUOTAS, ASKING THE QUESTIONS. SO I'D LIKE MY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ARE ON THIS COMMITTEE, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND YOU'RE LIKE LIKE, I'D LIKE OUR CIVILIAN COMMITTEE MEMBER, BECAUSE SHE'S NOT ELECTED SO THAT'S WHY SHE WAS CHOSEN, TO KIND OF HEAD THIS SUBCOMMITTEE UP UP.
I WOULD LIKE HER TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND THAT WAY THEY CAN WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. THE AUDITORS ARE JUST GOING TO PRESENT THE FACTS.
BUDDY KIND OF BASICALLY GIVES US THE AUDIT AND THEN WE WORK WITH THE CITY TEAM ON THAT. SO IF YOU ALL HAVE SUGGESTIONS, PLEASE PROVIDE THEM OUR WAY SO WE CAN DO THAT AND THEN HAVE A PRESENTATION HERE OR IF FITTING WE COULD MOVE IT ON TO THE COMMITTEES THAT OVER OVERSEE THESE DEPARTMENTS.
COUNCILMAN WHYTE? >> WHYTE: REAL QUICK. SO WHEN WE GIVE THESE DEPARTMENTS A DEADLINE TO FIX AN AUDITING FINDING, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY MISS IT
IT? >> FIRST OFF, WE DON'T PROVIDE THE DEADLINE.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE AUDIT THAT'S PRESENTED TODAY, THEY PROVIDE THE DEADLINE BECAUSE THERE'S SEVERAL VARIABLES. OBVIOUSLY THE DANGEROUS PROPERTIES THERE'S SOME HOOPS THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH WITH. SO THEY PROVIDE THE DATE.
WHAT WE DO WHEN WE GET TO THAT DATE, WE ASK THEM AGAIN IF THEY'RE ON TIME.
AND IF THEY ARE ON TIME WE'LL CATEGORIZE IT AS SUCH AND THEN WE'LL GO IN AND WE WILL REREVIEW. IF AT THAT TIME FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY DON'T MAKE THAT DATE, WE ASK FOR A NEW ESTIMATED DATE. SO THAT'S THE PROCESS.
SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY GIVE A DEADLINE. NOW, IF THERE'S SOME DEADLINES THAT ARE PROVIDED THAT SEEM UNREASONABLE, WE WILL MEET WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND ASK WHAT IS THE -- WHAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND THE DELAY IN TERMS OF MONTHS? THERE'S ALWAYS USUALLY A VERY REASONABLE EXPLANATION, WHICH IS PROBABLY BUDGET BASED. THERE'S ALSO CONTRACTS THAT ARE BEING TERMINATED SO IT'S NOT A VERY GOOD USE OF RESOURCES TO SPEND TIME CORRECTING SOMETHING WHEN THAT CONTRACT MAY NOT BE RENEWED.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS. >> WHYTE: OKAY.
AND JUST LAST THING. MAYBE THIS IS FOR YOU, BUT WHICH OF THE THREE OF THESE OUTSTANDING RECOMMENDATIONS DO YOU THINK REPRESENTS THE GREATEST FINANCIAL OR
OPERATIONAL RISK TO THE CITY CITY? >> VIAGRAN: ARE YOU
TALKING ABOUT THE VERIFIED WITH -- >> WHYTE: YEAH.
[00:45:06]
>> I THINK THE COUNCILMAN IS TALKING ABOUT THOSE THAT ARE BEHIND SCHEDULE IN TERMS OF
HAVE THOSE BEEN RESOLVED. >> WHYTE: YEAH, SHORT-TERM RENTALS, PARKS,
ENVIRONMENTAL, FIRE, EMS, 311. >> I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND WORK WITH EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS AND COME BACK AND --
>> WHYTE: WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. >> I'LL GET MORE FAMILIAR
WITH IT. >> WHYTE: OKAY. THAT'S PROBABLY SOMEWHAT OF
AN UNFAIR QUESTION ON THE SPOT RIGHT NOW. >> RIGHT NOW ON THE SPOT I
DON'T THINK I CAN GIVE YOU AN ANSWER. >> WHYTE: OKAY.
THANKS, CHAIR. >> VIAGRAN: AND THANK YOU FOR THAT, COUNCILMEMBER WHYTE BECAUSE THAT IS ONE THING AS WE LOOK AT OUR SEMI AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE BECAUSE AGAIN HE IS IN CHARGE OF THE 42 DEPARTMENTS DEPARTMENTS. THAT IS HIS PURVIEW. WE CAN BRING OUR -- WE'LL HAVE TRICIA BRINGS THE CONCERNS OF WHAT'S BEHIND SCHEDULE AND THE COST.
BUT WE DO WANT -- OF COURSE, ITS THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY MANAGER'S 42 DEPARTMENTS, WE OVERSEE WHAT HE DOES, SO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS WE'D APPRECIATE FORS THAT WE GO GO INTO CONVERSATION WITH HIM.
YES, BUDDY. >> VARGAS: I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOME CONTEXT FOR THAT SUBCOMMITTEE JUST FOR CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING.
WE HAVE FOUR AUDIT OUT OF THE FIVE TODAY THAT WERE VERY GOOD AUDITS, AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE DECIDE, ALONG WITH THE CHAIR'S DECISION, RIGHT, WHEN WE HAVE OUR PRE- PRE-MEETING. BUT THERE'S ONE IN HERE WITH NO FINDINGS.
THERE ARE SEVERAL IN HERE THAT HAVE SOME PARTIAL FINDINGS, BUT OVERALL THE OBJECTIVES WERE MET. SO THOSE ARE ALSO ON OUR FOLLOW-UP AND THEY MAY BE BEHIND, RIGHT, BUT ALSO IT WAS A GOOD AUDIT SO GOING BACK TO YOUR QUESTION IN TERMS OF THE DEGREE OPERATIONALLY OR FINANCIALLY FINANCIALLY, TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION ALSO. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
THANK YOU. >> VIAGRAN: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
COUNCILMEMBER MEZA GONZÁLEZ. >> GONZÁLEZ: YEAH, JUST A QUICK POINT.
AND I THINK THE CITIZEN REP AND MARC MAY HAVE SAID THIS, BUT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE'RE HAVING ON OUR BUDGET AND THE STRUCTURAL IMBALANCE THAT WE ARE ALL LOOKING THROUGH, IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE COULD DO THE SAME THING IN THIS COMMITTEE OR WITH THIS ACTION PLAN IS NOT LOOK AT THEM INDIVIDUALLY, BUT IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF STRUCTURAL ISSUE THAT COMES UP WITH EACH AUDIT, IS THERE SOMETHING WE'RE SEEING ACROSS THE BOARD WITHIN EVERY DEPARTMENT OR THAT IS MORE CITYWIDE ORGANIZATIONAL ORGANIZATIONALLY? I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE TO DO WITH THIS ACTION PLAN, BUT JUST BECAUSE OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE'RE HAVING AND TRYING TO FIND THESE EFFICIENCYIES AND HOW THAT WOULD -- HOW YOU
COULD DO THAT HERE. >> YEAH, I THINK IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT. I KNOW AS THESE THINGS ACTUALLY COME TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF THE FINDING AND THE AUDIT REPORTS, WE DO INTERNALLY LOOK AT THAT. I GUESS A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FOR EXAMPLE. AS BUDDY AND HE AND I TALK AND WE TALK ABOUT THESE AUDITS, IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT'S SYSTEMATIC ACROSS THE ORGANIZATION, WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN ADJUST THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS, SPECIFICALLY PICKING ON ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED IN DSD.
MY TEAM AND I ARE LOOKING AT IT ACROSS THE CITY AND ACTUALLY HAVING ALL THE DEPARTMENTS COME BACK AND DEFEND TO US THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THEIR INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT POLICIES ACTUALLY DRAFTED AND THAT THEY'RE ADHERING TO THEM. THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT AS WELL, AGAIN PICKING ON ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE, BUT ARE THERE OPPORTUNITIES TO ACTUALLY OUTSIDE OF CITY RESOURCES TO GO LOOK AT THESE SMALLER BALANCES AND COLLECT THEM THROUGH A THIRD-PARTY? SO WE ARE DOING THAT HOLISTICALLY AND WE CAN -- AS THESE THINGS COME UP THROUGH THIS COMMITTEE WE CAN KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING TO DO GLOBALLY VERSUS SPECIFIC TO THE AUDIT.
>> GONZÁLEZ: OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> VIAGRAN: ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, THE TIME IS NOW 11:53. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
AND FOR MY MEMBERS AROUND THE TABLE, I BELIEVE THERE ARE -- THERE'S LUNCH PROVIDED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.