of solving some of these violations. >> right now, we probably -- it has been a while since i have counted. we probably do 100, 120 complaints a week. >> that is what the vast majority of people do. most people who come in to get a permit take care of it. they come in because they think the violation is too harsh or the wartime. they will deal with the person who gave them the violation or their immediate senior. it very rarely gets to my level. commissioner lee: take this morning's case.

it started in 2002. perhaps if the appellate said, "i would like to go before a hearing," if she explained to the hearing officer, "this is what i was going to do," maybe it could have stopped at that level instead of wasting time. commissioner walker: she did not come back. she did finalize it. >> this morning's case, the customer went out and got the permit. that stopped the process. once you have a permit you are compliant and we are waiting for you to finish the work. and it got lost. it was only years later when we were going to the files we said, "this was 2002. we have not heard from her in two years. let us put it on." today she was tried to get relief on the fees. commissioner lee: ok. bad example. president murphy: is there a

time limit to when the permit is no longer valid? then it will not have the permit any more. you cannot just sit on the permit. >> most permits are good for one year. she took six months to get it. now we are at 18 months. we change the district inspectors every two to three years. so a lot of times the new inspector comes in and looks at a lot of new cases. president murphy: in every case that i have seen, as much time as could be reasonably given within the requirements and administrative code, we have given it. we have always wanted to be in a position where we have not wanted to say we give you less time. and the opportunity for advice or continuance we have tried to request. >> when we get our new computer system, that is point to make things a lot more efficient.

what inspector sweeney just mentioned about violations sitting for four or five years and not showing up -- we are actually going to paperwork years later. >> we are in the process of changing the code enforcement department. we are going to have a single number. right now, eid and pid -- plumbing and electrical -- the building inspectors go out for work. they go out for a lot of the complaints. after the second notion of violation, it is sent to code enforcement. what i have found is that is kind of a weakness in the system. you are bringing in somebody else who is not familiar with it. the direction we are going is we will have code enforcement officers who will take the case at the complaint level and go through all the various layers up into order of abatement and

before this body, so they can argue their own pace. they are the ones that know the case better than anybody else. if somebody walks into my office like it happened last night, i have never been there. a lot of these cases are very similar. the one last night, you almost had to go out there and see it. i advised him to go back to the district inspector, and if that did not work to get the senior involved. one of the things you want people to use all their appeal rights. you know what people coming directly to me. because once i say no, people underneath me are much less apt to go against what my wishes are. the old chain of command. you start low and work your way up. president murphy: with the tracking system, there should be a feature their that basically

would log how long the respective years of the outstanding violations. >> one of the things in a new ptf is one we have an export permit the code enforcement officer or building inspector will be notified. as a matter of fact, the permit holder will be notified it has expired as well. in the letter it would explain to them what they want to do to reactivate the permit or get a new one. president murphy: commissioner walker and i sit on the litigation committee. we would like to see more of fees adding some -- of getting some fees into the department. commissioner walker: the clock does not start at the directors hearing. it starts at the violation. >> one of the new ordinances

voted at this body was the $53 a month monitoring fee, so there is a financial incentive for the violators or the homeowners, the person that owns the building, to come forward, get the permit, and get it abated as quickly as possible. commissioner lee: what is the fee? >> $53 a month. commissioner walker: $52 a month in the notification a week after week issued a notice of violation, a letter notifying them of the monitoring fee plus the fact they do have the right to go, if they disagree with the notice of violation, what chain of command that can go through before they get to a director's hearing. and there is a major expense for these hearings. it is like a two-hour minimum for staff time. commissioner lee: it is good the public are receiving that letter.

commissioner clinch: i am a visual person. if there is a graphic and show this. text is so linear. if there is a way one can see what their options are and the different streets are avenues they can take, that would help to solve regulate their efforts as opposed to going on a path that basically keeps bumping them back further onto the list for time lost. director day: we consider that also, what their options are. commissioner lee: i would like to conclude by asking the department if you have any suggestions how to streamline how to resolve some of these issues, maybe there are opportunities to engage the property owner earlier on, maybe proactively so they can try to do something -- even to request

a hearing, try to get some understanding of what the problem is before it reaches the abatement process. director day: just so you know, they do attempt to engage the property owner in the beginning. they take the complaint to the property owner. i deal daily with property owners that have gone up the chain of command that do not agree with the decisions that have been made by the code enforcement officer, their supervisor, the deputy director. and i do have meetings weekly with property owners. and then we do go down and i explain the code for them. at the end, it is a matter that sometimes it just takes going all the way up to the director to hear it from five people that you cannot put a plastic tarp on top of your roof and leave it there forever. i mean, that is against the

code. commissioner lee: i am thinking maybe is there a way to streamline it and instead of going to the chain, can the jump decisions from somebody that is more neutral to the problem? maybe that would shorten the period and because down the staff time of inspections. director day: quite frankly, a lot of complaints are handled at the lower levels. i deal with five to 10 a week. they are dealing with 120. i am dealing with ones that are seven or eight years old and just coming up before you now. so the staff is handling part of the complaints now with this idea that they can go and have a second opinion and a third opinion. it is very rare they come to the directors hearing. it is usually on all complaints they can get an answer from. it is working out well the way it is. it is the effect of setting up formal hearings and formal meetings. that is going to take up more

staff time and what is involved right now. we have a pretty good relationship with code enforcement officers, and they have a pretty good relationship with their deputy director. it seems to be working out a little bit better now. there are stubborn cases. they do not want to hear the have to comply with safety issues. and that is all we are really calling out in most cases, is a safety issue. >> one of the best things i see on a daily basis is when a case is abated. that is good. that is a good one. that is a little bit better. i know we have gotten those. it is just getting a record. president murphy: thank you, tony. >> you are welcome. >> if there is any public comment? president murphy: i see none. >> item 9, review and approval of minutes of the regular

meeting of march 17, 2010. commissioner walker: move to approve. commissioner lee: second. >> the mets are approved. any public comment? president murphy: i see none. >> item in 10, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of april 21, 2010. commissioner clinch: motion to approve. >> is there any public comment? all those in favor? those are approved. review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of may 19, 2010. commissioner walker: move to approve. president murphy: public comments? see non-. >> all those in favor?

the next item is item 12, discussion and possible action on the annual performance evaluation of the director. item eight is public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. no public comment. b, item -- item b, move to go into closed session. all those in favor? we are now in closed session. president murphy: thank you, sonya.