Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - City Council - Meeting Date: 10/3/1989MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP SESSION OF THECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1989 AT 3:05 P.M. Mayor Renner called the Workshop Session of the GlendaleCityCounciltoorderintheWorkshopRoom, B-3, in theGlendaleCouncilChambers. Council members present were: Bellah, Falbo, Hugh, McAllister, and Tolby. Members Absent: Huffman. Also present were Martin Vanacour, City Manager; GordonL. Pedrow, Assistant City Manager; Peter Van Haren, City Attorney and Linda Duke, Executive Assistant and Lavergne Behm, City Clerk. WORKSHOP SESSION 1. SALT RIVER PROJECT AESTHETICS PROJECTS Ken Reedy, Deputy City Manager, Public Works, stated that in December 1988 the Board of Directors of Salt River Project (SRP) established a "Corporate Municipal Aesthetics Policy" which annually provides a fund of one percent of SRP's yearly gross revenues to pay for aesthetic improvements. Glendale's first year share of these funds amounts to $715,000 for the current SRP fiscal year (May 1, 1989 to April 30, 1990). Funds not expended during a fiscal year will be carried forward. Mr. Reedy stated that staff is recommending that the following projects be completed using currently available SRP funds: 1. Underground existing 12.5 KV lines along the Arizona Canal from 67th Avenue to approximately one-half mile east. 299,400 2. Underground all existing SRP lines on both sides of Bethany Home Road from 61st to 69th Avenues. 214,500 3. Underground utilities on both sides of Bethany Home Road, 59th to 61st Avenues. 123,500 Total cost would be $637,400. The projects listed above have been selected since theywillprovidetheCitywiththegreatestvisualimpactatthistimeinviewofthefundsavailable. These projects are forthemostpartinfullydevelopedareaswherewecannotrelyonfuturedevelopmenttoplaceutilitiesunderground. TheUtilitiesCommitteemetonSeptember6, 1989, to review thisproposalandunanimouslyrecommendedapprovalandrequestedstafftoforwardthistoCityCouncil. Councilman McAllister asked staff to explain why they donotundergroundall69kvlines. Ken Reedy explained that69KVpowerlinesgeneratealotofheatandthatthemaximumdemandperiodshereareusuallyduringthesummer. The hot soil conditions make it necessary to cool the lines with an oil process which is very expensive and not extremely dependable and that is why they avoid undergrounding the 69kv lines. This item is for information purposes. 2. MEDICAL BENEFITS REOUEST FOR PROPOSAL Allen Iampaglia, Risk Manager, stated that due to the increased claims activity and the increased cost of employee medical benefits with Washington National Insurance Comapny and the Arizona Health Plan, a 31.5% rate increase was implemented effective January 1, 1989. Current information from both carriers indicates another substantial increase effective January 1, 1990. These increases are primarily due to a 30% inflationary trend in medical benefits and a small number of catastrophic losses suffered by employees and dependents of the City of Glendale over the last twelve month period. In an effort to minimize any future increase of premiums for employee medical insurance, the Risk Management Division is suggesting a request for proposal from various insurance companies offering medical benefits coverage on a group basis. The Risk Management Division hopes to offer a choice of health care programs with a variety of premium options to the council for review in early November. Councilman McAllister suggested that a higher deductible be studied to see if that would be advantageous to the city. Mr. Iampaglia said that was one of the things they would be looking at when the different proposals come in. He also said that when he comes back before the Council he hopes to have a list of options and differences in deductibles and co -payments that might make a difference in the city's rates. Councilman Falbo stated that it might be a good time for the city to look at self-insurance. Mr. Iampaglia stated that traditionally self-insurance might save at the beginning but in the event of a catostrophic claim could end up costing 79- the City money. He stated that he felt it might be a prettybigstepfortheCitytotakerightatthistimebuttheywouldbelookingatalloptionsinthisreviewperiod. Discussion ensued on why the City gave physicals if theCitycouldnotthroughFederalemploymentpracticesdiscriminateagainstpeoplewithdifferenthealthproblems. Mr. Vanacour stated that there are stringent requirements forpoliceandfireandincertaininstancesindividualshadbeenturneddownaccordingtothestandardsofthePublicSafetyRetirementBoard. Discussion ensued on the merits of self insurance and different forms of self insurance. This item will be placed on a future Workshop agenda for further discussion and review. 3. HOUSING ADVISORY & APPEALS BOARD REPORT ON THE REHABILITATION COMPLAINTS City Manager Vanacour stated that since April, 1988, a number of former clients of the City's housing rehabilitation program have been lodging complaints about the adequacy of some of the rehabilitated units. On April 13 of that year, four clients filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development claiming the City staff had not fullfilled its obligations under the program. After extensive investigations by HUD staff, the Program Manager for the Phoenix area office responded in a letter dated July 6, 1988. Her conclusion was in part, "Our review clearly shows the City has gone beyond what is reasonably expected for this type of program. The city's responsiveness is well documented over the several years involved in these assisted units." After receiving this response, the complainants then requested a review by the San Francisco Regional Office of HUD. On January 3, 1989, that response upheld the earlier HUD finding. Finally, the City Council reviewed the complaints and HUD's response in workshop session on March 7, 1989. At that meeting, the City Council agreed to ask the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board to review the complaints and make some recommendations to the City Council. In response to the Council's request, the five -member Housing Advisory and Appeals Board agreed to inspect the 18 homes listed in the complaint. Between April 6, 1989, and September 6, 1989, the Board met 11 times to inspect each of the homes individually, to hear information presented by the individual families, to draft their findings, and to review those findings with Mr. Gonzales and four representatives of the homeowner's group. The Housing Advisory and Appeals Board concluded, the rehabilitation program was administered within reasonandtheCityhasnoresponsibilitytomakecorrections. However, every effort should be made to assist the homeownersofthosehomesaddressedinourreport." City Manager Vanacour stated that he is recommendingthattheBoard's conclusions be accepted and that it berecognizedthatmorethaneighteenmonthsworthofinvestigationsandreviewbyCitystaff, Area and RegionalOfficesofHUDandfinally, the Housing Advisory and AppealsBoard, have come to the same conclusion. The city has actedresponsiblyandhasnoobligationstomakecorrections. In light of the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board's recommendation, City Manager Vanacour recommends that staff continue to provide technical assistance by: (1) assisting clients contact contractors and/or the Registrar of Contractors, (2) referring two clients to Maricopa County's weatherization program and (3) to make repairs in two cases. He is recommending the latter action to alleviate one possible threat to health and safety at the Mohamed house and to correct an ongoing cooling problem at the Serrano residence. With these actions, the City needs to bring closure to this matter so that the program can continue in a positive fashion. Mr. Vanacour concurs with staff that if closure on this appeal process is not possible at this time, serious considerations should be given to discontinuing the substantial rehabilitation portion of the program. This could be unfortunate in light of the approximately 125 homes already completed. Councilman Bellah asked staff for the cost of the fix -up work of each home as presented by staff and the citizens' committee. Mr. Petri stated that his committee had discussed this issue and decided that with the time constraints they could not itemize every cost at this time but if the Council so desired they would do so at a later date. Councilman Bellah reiterated that he would like an approximate figure so that he could better assess the issue. Mr. Petri responded that his estimate is that $5,000 would make all the necessary repairs that the committee has addressed in the report. Mr. Ludwick, Neighborhood Resources Director, stated that there are many variables that enter into figuring the cost but the best estimate he could give was that the total cost would be in the range of $20,000 to $160,000 for all homes. Mayor Renner explained that the charge to the Housing Advisory Appeals Board was to evaluate eighteen individual complaints in an attempt to determine responsibility as to the City's involvement in responding to any repairs or changes in the rehabilitation of the homes. Mr. Petri, Chairman of the Housing Advisory and AppealsBoardreadaletterhehadpreparedforsubmissiontotheCouncilonthefindingsoftheboard. (See attached). Councilman Bellah asked Mr. Petri if he agreed with Mr. Ludwick's projections of the cost of the improvements. Mr. Petri responded positively. Mr. Petri clarified that itdoesn't mean that the improvements are neccessary but if theworkisdoneaccordingtothecomplaints, then the costs areprobablyaccurate. However, he stated that his committee didnotfeelthatallofthecomplaintswerevalid. Councilman McAllister asked Mr. Petri if his committee had reached any conclusions that trying to repair older homes was doomed to failure. Mr. Petri responded that it is difficult to work on an older home and it demands that after the initial work is done, some maintenance must be done to keep the work in order. Councilman McAllister asked Mr. Petri if it was his opinion that a problem existed with the Federal government in that the program was not very well thought out in the beginning. Mr. Petri responded positively. Mr. Petri said he felt that the federal government was trying to help people and didn't realize the intricacy involved in rehabilitating older homes. Mayor Renner asked Mr. Petri to give the qualifications of the members of the Housing Advisory and Appeals board. Mr. Petri stated that each of the five members has had about 40-50 years experience in the construction trade and said that almost all of the members had inspected each one of the homes in question. Mayor Renner thanked the Board for the hours they had given to assist the City in this investigation. Mr. Bill Stout, spokemen for the Citizens Representative Committee, stated that his group estimated the cost of the repair work to be between $75,000 - $150,000. Mr. Bill Stout explained the qualifications of the citizen committee and said that his committee consisted of people who also had knowledge of the construction industry. He proceeded to read a letter from his committee. (See attached). Mr. Bobby Gonzalez, spokesman for the citizen committee, stated to Council that out of the 127 homes rehabilitated, 30 people have come forward to complain about the work done on their homes. This computes to almost 25% of the people being against the work that is being done. Mr. Gonzalez stated that the citizen committee was badly treated by the Housing Advisory and Appeals board at some of the meetings. He said that several of the people he asked to help his committee evaluate the issues, were laughed at andhumiliated. Mr. Gonzalez further stated that HUD in theirinvestigation, had found that the City was at fault for poorrecordkeeping; specifically records of complaints. Mr. Gonzalez said that several complaints had been submitted butwerenotloggedin. Mr. Gonzalez suggested that the City should have ageneralcontractorgohousetohouseonthecomplaintsthatarelistedandhavethecontractorgiveanestimate; thenhavethecitizens' committee go house to house and do an estimate and then compare the prices and compromise on a price. Then have the homeowner fix their own house and get a waiver releasing the City and HUD from all their responsibility and close the matter. Councilman Bellah asked Mr. Gonzalez what the source of funding would be if his plan were followed. Mr. Gonzalez replied that funds would be provided from the emergency HUD fund or an emergency city fund or from the Registrar of Contractors who could make the contractors pay for the damages. Mr. Stout stated that nothing can be done unless the City works with the citizen's committee. Discussion ensued on what work the City is actually responsible for under the program and what the individual homeowners are requesting. Mr. Stout and his group maintain that some of the city codes were not followed and some inspections were not done to the letter. Mayor Renner pointed out that in the minutes of a meeting on September 6th, one of the members of the citizens' committee indicated that, "overall, he felt that the Board had done an excellent job." Mr. Stout then called Council's attention to a report of the "Findings of the Glendale Housing Revitalization Program by Citizens Committee - Glendale Housing Board of Appeals" and stated that the results were signed by all of the members of the committee and this was a report of what the committee felt was wrong with the program. Mr. Stout stated his displeasure with the report given by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board at their suggestion that the citizens group would not be satisfied unless the city did all of the repair work they were requesting. Councilman Bellah stated that was what it sounded like to him, from what he had heard at today's meeting. Vice Mayor Tolby asked Mr. Ludwick, NeighborhoodResourcesDirector, in the agreement signed by thehomeowners, was the City's role as agent spelled -out? Mr. Ludwick stated that the only role of the City in thecontractisinthecaseofdisputesbetweenthepropertyownerandthecontractor. He said that the agreement thatthepeoplesignwhentheyapplyfortheprogram, theyindicateanunderstandingthattheyhaveresponsibilitiesrequiringrehabilitationofthehometoprogramstandardsutilizinglicensedcontractorsandmaintainingthehomeandinsuranceandpaymentsaftertheworkisdone. Vice Mayor Tolby said that he understood that the City had been assisting the people but does this put the City into the role of being responsible for all actions? Mr. Ludwick stated that it is his understanding that it was the City's place to assist not to assume the responsibility for the individual's role in the contract. Vice Mayor Tolby pressed whether the contract was between the individual and the contractor or if the City was a party to the contract. Mr. Ludwick responded that the City is not a participant in the contract at all. Mr. Ludwick also said that it has not been the City's contention and there has been nothing that he could perceive in the contract that the City has a legal status as a participant in the contract. Mr. Van Haren, City Attorney, stated that after reviewing the file, it was his opinion that the City never assumed the agency relationship. He said that the City does not have any legal duty in these contracts on making good workmanship or repair performed by a party to the contract for another party. Vice Mayor Tolby stated that his dilema, in deciding anything on this issue, was whether the City had any legal responsibility to make the repairs on the homes. He feels that if the City doesn't have a legal responsibility to make the repairs then they shouldn't have to. Vice Mayor Tolby asked Mr. Stout and Mr. Gonzalez how they felt the City assumed the legal responsibility. Mr. Stout responded that there is a contract that is put out by Neighborhood Revitalization that lists the responsibilities of that department. Mr. Gonzalez said that an individual goes to the City for assistance and the City takes over. They (City) provide the contractors, do the blueprints, and provide the material. Mr. Gonzalez feels that this is assumption of responsibility. Vice Mayor Tolby asked staff who bears the responsibility if a city code is violated. Mr. Van Haren replied that the City is only a regulatory agency; does code inspections. The City does not inspect for workmanship nordoesitacceptresponsibilityorliabilityforthat. Itbelongswiththecontractor. Councilman Bellah asked again whether either group hadgonethroughandaccountedforthecostsofalloftherepairs. The response was negative, both groups respondedthattheirfigureswerepurelyestimates. Vice Mayor Tolby stated that he felt that the issue waswhethertheCitywasresponsibleornotregardlessofthecostinvolved. If the City is responsible they should payandiftheyarenottheyshouldn't have to pay anything. The Workshop meeting recessed at 5:03 p.m. to go into regular City Council session. The Workshop meeting reconvened at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Renner restated Councilman Bellah's suggestion to determine costs for those specific recommendations as made by the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board and to proceed ahead with the repairs as recommended by the Board, plus requesting that the Housing Board get total costs for every house involved in the complaints. Councilman Bellah also requested that city staff review alternative financing options such as emergency HUD funds and bring this back to the Council. Councilman McAllister suggested that the City explore the responsibility of the lending agency (HUD) and see if the eventual responsibility lies with them. Vice Mayor Tolby stated that he felt that by the City accepting the legal responsibility it would be setting a dangerous precedent for the City in that there are 100 homes that have not been heard from. He is not convinced that the City has any legal responsibility in this matter and thinks the City should bring this issue to a close. He does feel that the City has a moral responsibility and suggested that Council sees to it that Neighborhood Revitalization has an adequate budget that could accommodate requests from citizens who need assistance. He further suggested proceeding ahead and doing the five or six recommendations made by staff and when budget planning comes around see to it that Revitalization has some discretionary funds available for hardship cases. Mayor Renner suggested to Council that they ask for cost estimates for those recommended repairs for houses 1,4,5,9,13 and 18. As the cost estimates are developed, if there could be a specific source or sources of funding i.e. the weatherization, the availability of any emergency repair 85- moneys or other funding sources, Mayor Renner would suggesttoCouncilthattheyconsiderthisafirststepinassigningcoststothese. He would further ask the Housing AdvisoryandAppealsBoardtolookatassigningcoststothosehousesalongwiththecitizenscommittee. He would also ask Mr. Larry Richards, Building Safety Director, to review both ofthefiguresproducedbybothgroupsandevaluatethem. Mayor Renner then requested that there be a costestimatenarrowingforallofthecomplaintslistedforeachhouse. He said there was interest among the Council to get ahandleonthetotalandatotaloneachindividualhouse. Mayor Renner would suggest bringing some specifics on houses 1,4,5,9,13 and 18 back to Council with potential sources of funding. Councilman Bellah asked if Council could have two sets of figures; one for the recommended repair items from the Appeals Board and another figure for the additional items there were in the complaint. Mr. Ludwick replied that Council can have both. Mayor Renner asked Mr. Petri how the Appeals Board arrived at their recommendations for repairs. Mr. Petri replied that the board took all of the complaints into consideration and those that were purely maintenance were not listed on the report that was submitted to Council. Mr. Petri said the board addressed only those that they felt should be taken care of by the contractor; some things that they should have done while they were there. Councilman Huffman asked who is going to figure out what everything costs. Mayor Renner suggested the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board submit details and also ask the citizens' committee to do the same and charge Mr. Richards to review the estimates and bring them back to Council. This item will be brought back to Workshop for future discussion and review. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further items, the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. 40 yao,a,' alt ; Deputy City Clerk omm 0 DATE: August.30, 1989TO: Mayor and CouncilFROM: V.J. Petri, ChairmanHousingAdvisoryand Appeals BoardSUBJECT: REVIEW OF GLENDALE REVITALIZATION PROGRAM In accordance with your instruction, the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board has met with a five -member Citizen Representative Committee to. 'attempt to determine any structural deficiencies in the rehabilitation of 18 homes in the City of Glendale. The 18 homes rehabilitated were done from 1979 through 1987 and the complaints, filed mostly in 1988. However, a number of the homeowners complained prior to 1988 and a few had complaints within the first year or two, most all of which were corrected according to the records and were viewed by all ten members accompanied by the press, the homeowners, a representative from the Neighborhood Revitalization Division and Larry Richards, Building Safety Director. To begin with, any construction or reconstruction of a home, or other structures as far as that is concerned, seldom is without fault and after two or three years, needs maintenance. A number of these homes showed very little maintenance while some showed evidence of continued maintenance. In some cases, it appeared that the homeowners made the complaints after a number of years had elapsed and any recourse against the contractor had diminished to nil. In many cases, when remodeling older homes, it is better to take the old one down completely and start anew. When constructing new homes, we often find ourselves omitting or redoing portions that do not suit. In no way, when working on an old house, can a contractor foresee all the many problems that can creep up because changes were made on an adjacent wall, roof or floor. The cost to remodel old homes is most always more costly than building new. Adding a room, bath or mechanical equipment is more costly than had the construction of such improvements been accomplished at the time of original construction. When adding block work, framing and concrete to existing structures, the shrinkage in drying wood products or concrete, the contraction or expansion of block and concrete and the settling of the soil due to water or vibration will most always cause cracks or pulling away from the original structure. August 22, 1989MayorandCouncilPage2Insomecases, we found the city administration had gone waybeyondtheirresponsibilityasanagenttoassistthehomeowners, and the contractor had returned again and again inanefforttosatisfythehomeowner. In no case do we find thatanyintenttodefraudthehomeownerswasprevalent. In other cases, we feel there are inequities that need to becorrectedandfeelstronglythatactionagainstthecontractorsbetaken. We have listed each house, addressed our findings andlistedourrecommendationsforcorrection. A cost estimate oneachprojectwillfollowshortly. Taking into consideration that some complaints being made in 1988 were for work done as far back as 1979, it would appear that some of the homeowners were prompted to complain without foundation. It is unfortunate that those who have been caught up in such a situation must suffer through the learning process entailing new ideas offered by our legislators with good intentions of upgrading living conditions and raising the standard of environment. However, these things cannot be accomplished without constant vigil by those who are a part of this process. The neighbors and friends of those participating in the program MW should be lending a hand on these jobs as they are being prepared and worked on in order that the participants have a better understanding of what is necessary and prudent to accomplish what they are expecting. The Citizen Representative Committee should be commended for their assistance and willingness to serve in helping those who are in need of help. However, a great deal of their efforts directed against the City are wrong as it is quite evident that the City was only acting as the agent and in our opinion has no responsibility other than to assist in contacting the contractors and requesting that some repairs be made to rectify those items that appear to have been overlooked at the time of construction or assist in reporting the findings to the Registrar of Contractors. In conclusion, the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board believes that due to the nature of the complaints, most of which were belated and in some cases excited by others; for what purpose we are not here to judge; the rehabilitation program was administrated within reason and the City has no responsibility to make corrections. However, every effort should be made to assist the homeowners of those homes addressed in our report. August 22, 1989MayorandCouncilPage3MembersoftheCitizen Representative Committee feels that theyhavenotbeentreatedfairlybytheHousingAdvisoryandAppealsBoardmembersandfeelweshouldincludetheircomplaintsinourreportofwhichwedonotconcur. However, we have agreed thatwewillsubmittheCitizenRepresentativeCommittee's reportseparatelyforyourreviewandevaluation. We, as your Housing Advisory and Appeals Board, do not believethatwe, or any other agency, could satisfy the CitizenRepresentativeCommitteeexceptbyagreeingtoalltheircomplaintsandcondemntheCityfortryingtoaidthose who wishtotakeadvantageoftheFederalRehabilitationProgram. I believe my letter, done in May of this year, explained our position to the Citizen Representative Comittee and we still stand on those ideals. I remain, very truly yours. VJP/ama U NAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CCUNCIL Letter from Bill Stout, Citizens' ConunitteeIrrIWANTTOTHANKYOUFORTIIEOPPORTUNITYT.IERE ARE SO MANY ISSUES TO DISCUSS THATTODECIDE1;'IICII ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ON ADDRESS...... 3EI: G CONCERNED itiITH THE TREATNE`IT OF T11P. RESIDENTS' COMPLAINTS IS, OF COURSE, TEE PRII•iARY CONC!7RN..... .1014EVF.R, IN TINE PROCESS OF WORKING FOR THEIR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS WE iIAVE ENCOUNTERED OTIfER SERIOUS PROCLEAIS AND ATTITUDES FACING OUR COI•ItiU`IITY..... I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A COPY OF THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE REPORT V.'11IC1I SUPPORTS THE RESIDENTS A"D STRONGLY RFC01W4ENDS vw THAT THE CITY MAKE THINGS RIGHT LITH THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE REHABILITATION PROGRAM........ EVEN MR. PETRI REFERS TO THE CITY AS "AGENT" - AND I PRESU;,IE HE MEANS AGENT FOR THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROGP.AI•....... hE AGREE...... TIIE CITY 11AS TAE AGENT, OVERSEEING THE ENTIRE PROCESS FOR EACH CITIZEN........ AIN "AGENT" IS CLEARLY DEFINED AS ONE. INSTRUSTED ..ITH ANOTHER'S LUSINESS AND TIIAT, GENTLEbiE:j fIS "PIAT TOOK PLACE IN EACH OF THESE TRANSACTIONS ......... THE PEOPLE TRUSTED TIIE CITY EMPLOYEES TO ACT ON THEIR BEHALF. ..... 1•;E DON'T FEEL THE RESIDENTS 1;Ei E ADEC`UATELY SERVED. TO VIOLATE TIIE TRUST THE PARTICIPANTS HAD IS s SERIOUS MATTER. 1'JIIYDOES TIIE CITIZENS COMPtITTEF FEEL SO STRONGLY Ar OUTTHERESIDENTSAND; REQUEST' THEY 711E 'IELPED 11ITHTHEIRPR03LEI-I5 I'J11ICH HAVE RESULTED FROM POOR CONSTRUCTIONPRACTICESINTHEREHABILITATIONOFTHEIRMOMES? OUR REPORTLISTSAGREATDEALOF . OUR FINDINGS....... IIo EVER, 1';EHONESTLYANDSINCERELYFEELTHESERESIDENTSIIAVEBEENGIVENNOTIIINGSIIORTOFA "RAIL DEAL." ........ I:E' RE NOT FOOLISH AND STUPID PEOPLE THAT CAN'T SEE POOR CONSTRUCTION, LOUSY INSPECTION PRACTICES, AND SHODDY WORKIMANSHIP AND MATERIALS.... WE'VE 3EEN AROUND A FE1V YEARS ...... 1;E KNOIV A FEN' 7III*ICS. I SO:-lETl,%lZS 1:ON'DER IF TIIE REPORT BY THE HOUSING ADVISORY AND APPEALS BOARD ?JAS DONE BY THE SAME MEN %'110 P,ODE AROUND IN TIIE DIAL -A -RIDE BUS 'WiTH OUR COMMITTEE ....... THEIR C01MMEN'PS AT THE HOMES I'JEPE SO DECIDEDLY DIFFERENT...... SO 14ANY TIMES THEY HAVE COMPLETELY REVERSED FIELD...... I RFLIrVE TIfEY STARTED OUT 1-YITIi TIIE RIGHT GOALS PUT WERE INTERCF.PTFD SOME11IIERE D01';N FIELD. AS A RESULT, IN THIS PROCESS TIIE CITIZENS COMI-11ITTEE HAS BEEN TREATED AS SHABBILY BY TI[E HOUSING ADVISORY POARD AS THE RESIDENTS 11AVE BEEN TREATED 3Y THE GLENDALE HEAD OF TIIE HOUSING REVITILIZATION DEPARTMENT. IT IS AN INCULT TO US THAT PMR. PETRI REFERS TO US AS PEOPLEAw1;1710 CAN".OT BE SATISFIED UNLESS 1,E COMPLETELY GOT OUR 01INWAY ....... DID 'iE TELL YOU THAT 11F DIDN'T !':ANT TO SIT DOWNi:ITIl OUR COMMITTEE TO WRITE THE FINAL REPORT 19ITH RECOMMENDATIONS'. DID LIE TELL YOU THAT THEY SPENT Tl°0 TO THREE !!OURS ON 71FIRREPORT - HAD ONLY ONE MEETING? ...DID 71E TELL YOU 11E SPENT12HOURSONOURREPORT - HAD THREE MEETINGS? I DOUBT IT....... WHO, GENTLEMEN, TIiEN DID SPEND THE MOST TIME STUDYING AND RESEARCHING THE SITUATION?. -WE DID...14R. RICHARDS 1';AS THERE. THROUGII OUR MEETINGS SUCH EXPERTS AS MR. PETRI AND COMPANY NEVER ASKED OR INSISTED THAT CODE ROOKS BE AVAILAnLE. NOBODY EVEN SEEcIED REMOTELY INTERESTED IN CODES AND 11:IlI?THER T1iEY HAD SEEN VIOLATED UNTIL WE ASKED FOR THEM ...... A STRANGE THING FOR MEN SO 19TrLL INFORLIED IN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS T6 SIIOI:. NO INTEREST WHATSOEVER IN HOW THE CODES READ AND EVEN TO SEE IF THE CODES WERE VIOLATED. IN REALITY THE HEAD OF THE REVITILIZATION PROGRAM ACTUALLY ACTED AS CHAIRMAN OF THE MEETINGS...... EVEN IN ROUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEE IIEARINGS THIS IS NOT THE CASE. DEPARTMENT LEADS MAY BE QUESTIONED BY THE COMMITTEE BUT THEY DON'T CONTROL THE I.'IIOLE SHOW. INITIALLY ON FOUR DIFFERENT OCCASIONS WE WERE ASSUREDWEWEREPARTOFTHEHOUSINGADVISORYANDAPPEALSBOARD...;.. LATER WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A VOTE ....... AND STILL LATER DOhNTHEROADWEDIDN'T EVEN SEE REPORTS NOR MINUTES OF TUU1IEETINGSUNLESS1*;E SPECIFICALLY KIEV' WHAT TO ASS: FOR..... SOMEREPORTSTHATYOUHAVE, CENTLEDIEN, i';E RECEIVED LATE THIS MORNING.... NOI: HOW CAN WE 13E CONSIDERED MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE? C0UNCILME N.....voE HAVE BEEN USED ..... THE PEOPLE IN T!IE PROGRAM WERE USED ...... TO PRETEND THAT WE l';ERE PART OF TIIIS COMMITTEE FOR TIIIS ISSUE ONLY IS A RUSE ....... WE IIAVE TO DENY AW RESPONSIBILITY FOR T.lE REPORT SUBMITTED BY TIIE ADVISORY BOARD. TO BE USED IN TIIIS MANNED. IS NOT TO OUR LIKING TO SAY THE LEAST ..... TO BE PORTRAYED AS KNOVI—NOTHINGS THAT CAN'T BF SATISFIED UNLESS WE HAVE OUR Ol"N' WAY IS AN INSULT. Tllu FACT IS, THE DEPARTMENT HEAD . INFLUE*;CFD TTir ADVISORY C011NITTEE THROUGHOUT T!IE INVESTIGATION ..... NOTHING !!AS CHANCE FROM WHEN l;E STARTED THIS IINOLE- SHOW UP TO NOt'; ... , .I';E HAVE NOT PROGRESSED ONE STEP EXCEPT FEELINGS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE I:ESIDENTS HAVE BECOME :MORE STRAI*IED. i -.'E HOPE IN THE FUTURE THAT CITIZENS INPUT MILL BE RESPECTED AND TREATED 1 ITII THE SAME RESPECT AS HANDPICKED PERSONS SERVING ON CITY COMMITTEES. AS I SAID BEFORE I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A COPY OF OUR REPORT.... IF NOT, PLEASE LET US KNOW AND WE WILL PROME YOU ONE..... WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TAKING THE TIME TO READ IT.... A GREAT DEAL OF EFFORT AND STUDY WAS PUT INTO OUR FINDINGS..... THANK YOU.