First set of reforms for Oakland building inspectors detailed in new report

Photo by Jennifer Inez Ward

(Editor's Note: In early July, the Alameda County Grand Jury issued a report blasting the city's Building Services division. The report was highly critical of a number of Building Services practices, including imposing excessive fines, allowing inspectors to intimidate and threaten property owners and the department’s frequent use of prospective liens - an aggressive and punishing code enforcement
warning.
)

The city's embattled Building Services division has begun revamping the role of its inspectors.

In a recently-issued, five-page report, the division spells out in more detail the ongoing reform measures being put in place for Oakland inspectors.

Inspectors played a heavy role in a July Alameda County Grand Jury report that blasted the division's actions on a number of fronts. The report was highly critical of a number of Building Services practices, including imposing excessive fines.

But it was the action of the city's inspectors that  garnered the harshest words in the report. According to the grand jury, inspectors dealt with property owners in “an atmosphere of hostility and intimidation.” Property owners said aggressive enforcement action resulted in high fines or homes lost to demolition because homeowners were unable to appeal actions made by Building Services.

The new Building Services reforms impact both the code enforcement inspectors along with permit inspectors.

According to city officials, the ongoing changes emphasize project coordination along with a greater prioritization of service to the public.

As part of the reform process, in the area of permit issuance, Building Services has divided its inspectors into core groups that will solely focus on either commercial or residential. In the area of infrastructure permits, construction inspectors were paired with "Plan Check and Project Implementation" for better coordination and feedback. Additional reform measures underway include supplemental training measures for inspectors and developing a "how to build" pamphlet outlining city guidelines.

Consistency among inspectors is critical, said Councilwoman Jane Brunner, who called for the report from Building Services.

"We need to come up with consistency," Brunner told Building Services Director Ray Derania at a recent committee meeting. "What's happening out in the real world, with real homes and real businesses, is that your inspectors have different opinions that is costing (people) thousands of dollars."

Property owners urged any changes regarding city inspectors should be closely tied to the recommendations called for in the Alameda County Grand Jury report.

"In light of the problems Oakland homeowners have complained about regarding Building Services, and the Grand Jury has now confirmed, it may be that rearranging Building Services inspectors ... is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic," property owner Andrew Vincent said.

This is just one of a number of reform reports expected for Building Services. City Administrator Deanna Santana said her office is currently conducting a management review, "from A to Z."  Other reform measures underway include improving customer service in Building Services, developing greater transparency and developing a centralized data management system that is accessible to the public.

In addition, the division will soon see additional reform actions it must comply with coming from the City Council. Last week, Council voted to directed city staff to put together a motion that would permanently ban perspective liens, create a public Building Services task force and create an approval process for home demolitions, among other measures.

The full City Council is expected to discuss the recent Building Services report at its regular meeting next week.

This article is part of 'Oakland Inside,' a continuing investigative news series that examines the inner workings of Oakland City Hall and explores accountability issues around CEDA Building Services. This coverage was made possible by a grant from The Fund for Investigative Journalism. Read all stories in this series.

A writer and photographer, Jennifer Inez Ward has been documenting Oakland neighborhoods for more than 10 years. A graduate of UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism, she focuses on the uniqueness and beauty of everyday life in a city that is too often overlooked for its treasures and pleasures. Throughout the years, Jennifer has had the honor of showcasing her work at a number of venues, including a permanent loan of images that are displayed on the front wall of Barnes and Nobel in Jack London Square. Jennifer is a featured artist documented in “Images of America: Black Artists in Oakland."

If you have been a victim of building inspectors or over enforcement of building codes please go to the terroized by ceda facebook site and click like. (link below)

You should also check out the AUDITAOAKLANDCEDA website for valuable resources. 

 

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Terrorized-by-CEDA-Oakland-CA/238817662804867

www.auditoaklandceda.com

 

The house in the photo above caught fire about three years ago. The owner had fire insurance to cover repairs, but CEDA Building services liened the place and refused to issue repair permits until the liens were paid. Insurance money went to pay liens and the house remains a blight on the neighborhood. 

We don't have a Blight problem,  We have a code enforcement and lien problem. Blight is a symptom of those problems.

For further details attend the City Council meeting on Oct 4th. A speaker will address the illegal diversion of funds issue, and the (former)owner of the (forclosed) house in the picture above may also be there.  

That is how it goes in Oakland.  First comes overenforcment of building codes, then prospective liens, then abatement, then compliance plans, then forclosure due to property tax bills.  Then comes squatters, and a fire.   So much for the blight ordenance.   The City's antiblight efforts actually cause blight but they definitly increase revenues for the city.   Everyone should know how bad it is, just look at the fees they charged for clean up contracts in 2009.  47 precent of what was invoices was for city related administration fees.  The below data comes straight from the general ledger from CEDA fund 2415.  I have crunched the numbers for FY07 - 09 and here is what actually happend in 09 on clean up contracts. 

 

FY2009 Total from Invoices for Contractor Clean ups and Demo Contracts

Contract Amounts  Paid to Contractors for work done: $1,283,807.76 

Total tacked on invoices for Contract Admin Fee Paid to CEDA   $   431,272.97

Total tacked on invoices for BID Fee Paid to CEDA   $   173,257.00

Total tacked on invoices for Contractor Mobilization Paid to CEDA   $   160,104.93

Total tacked on invoices for Prepare Invoice Paid to CEDA   $     98,070.00

Total tacked on invoices for Technology Enhancement Fee 5.25% Paid to CEDA   $     96,922.02

Total tacked on invoices for Records Management 9.5% Paid to CEDA   $   175,382.70

Total Invoice padding - Admin Fees w/o contract Total Paid to CEDA   $1,135,009.63

Total Billed to Owner     $2,418,817.39

Percentage of Padding: Total Related only to only Administration and Processing fees   47%  

 

They basically double the invoice!