Board of Health

No Meeting in May June 04, 2015 A public hearing and organizational meeting of the Board of Health was held at 5:00 p.m. Present were: Ian Murray, Chairman; John Bogdasarian, M.D. Member; Sandra Knipe, R.N. B.S.N, Member; Stephen D. Curry, Director; Michael P. Burns, Sanitary Inspector; Irene Hernandez, Mayor’s Assistant & Interpreter; Lisa Small, Property Owner; Mirna Torres, Tenant; Maria Padilla, Fitchburg Resident. Public Hearing The Public Hearing for Mirna Torres, 229 Rollstone Street, 2nd Floor, opened at 5:10p.m. Under the State Sanitary Code, a tenant has the right to request a hearing if he/she feels that the inspector failed to find violations of the sanitary code. Ms. Torres claims that such violations exist. She also claims that the inspectors failed to certify such violations that may endanger or materially impair the health, safety and well-being of the occupants. Also noted was that the inspector failed to issue an order as requested by the State Sanitary Code. All parties effected by the hearing have a right to be present. Michael Burns initially inspected Ms. Torres’s apartment on November 12, 2014. Our Director briefly reviewed the documents with the board members for clarification. The first accusation is that the inspector failed to find violations of the law when said violations are claimed to exist. Ms. Padilla cited 105 CMR 410, the minimum standard of fitness for human habitation. Mr. Burns inspected the apartment on a complaint that the apartment is too cold. According to Ms. Torres the inspector failed to cite a window that leaks when it rains and a fan in the kitchen that wasn’t working. She also had issues with the toilet as well as cracks in the two doors. Ms. Torres stated that the heat wasn’t working properly in the living room as well as the kitchen/dining area, while the bathroom and the two bedrooms are very, very hot. She was told to keep the bedroom doors open to help with circulation which she claims did not work. The landlord put a lock on the thermostat in the hall and cannot be regulated by the tenant. Ms. Torres stated that the inspector commented about the inside thermostat being too close to the stove. According to the tenant none of the complaints were written on the report of November 12, 2014. Mr. Curry asked what kind of heat was in the apartment. Ms. Padilla responded that according to the Registry of Deeds the house has oil heat. She stated that the landlord changed the heat from oil to steam with no permits. She claims that the work was not done by a professional and that’s why the system is not connected properly. Ms. Torres as well as Ms. Padilla have complained to the Building Department about this issue. The department’s response was that nothing could be done; they would have to be present at the time the work was being done. Our Director asked if there were radiators in every room. It was determined by discussion from the property owner, that the apartment was heated by forced hot air through vents. The tenant claims that there is no hot air coming through the vents. Ian Murray asked for clarification from the owner as to how the house is heated. Ms. Small responded that it was a forced hot air system using natural gas. There are two separate heating systems for each apartment. The system for the first floor is in the basement while the second floor system is in the attic. The Chairman asked if there were vents in every room. The owner’s response was yes. To summarize: The heat complaint was made in November 2014. According to Ms. Torres, the inspector took a temperature reading which was fine, but she did not see the reading herself. She claims he checked the vents and saw that there was no air coming through, only to the bedrooms and bathroom. She stated that the apartment is cold in the winter and hot in the summer. Mr. Burns was asked about the inspection. The first thing he did was take a temperature reading. As recorded on the report, the temperature was between 72° and 76° in all the rooms. He turned the thermostat up to make sure the furnace kicked in. The system turned on and seemed to be working properly. One of the rear bedrooms that was closed off feeds down into the system with a return air supply. The system balances with the hot air system if it can flow back to the system. The heat is taken from one room if it can’t get back to the other room. The temperature requirements were still being met. From 7a.m. to 11p.m. the minimum reading should be 68°. Dr. Bogdasarian asked Ms. Torres if she ever took the temperature and documented the reading. Her response was “no”. The first appointment that Mr. Burns made with Ms. Torres was canceled because it was too warm outside to take a temperature reading. He returned the following week when it became colder to take a temperature reading. A copy of the inspection report was shown to Ms. Torres showing her signature. Ms. Padilla stated that the tenant does not know how to read or write in English and she signed the report because she was asked to. Ms. Small stated that Ms. Torres’ son called her on two different occasions regarding the heat before the BOH inspection took place. Her husband is a general contractor and responded to the heat complaint. He checked the thermostat, changed the filters and checked the rooms for heat. Everything seemed to be in good working order. He explained to the tenant that because of the type of system, the inside doors need to be kept opened. Mr. Murray stated that according to the request for a hearing, the tenant is basically accusing the inspector of failing to find violations. The landlord stated that she had a Section 8 tenant for eight years, having annual inspections without any issues. To summarize: Mr. Burns inspected the apartment once. He canceled the first appointment because it was too warm and rescheduled when the weather was cooler. The temperature readings were within the normal range. Mr. Murray asked Mr. Burns if he had inspected the doors. He made a note that there was a gap underneath the door. On the violation report Mr. Burns noted that Ms. Torres’ son asked him not to send the report. On the April 8th report, 2nd page is where the violation is cited. The door has a hairline crack in one panel and a gap in the lower portion that is greater than a sixteenth of an inch. The inspector recommended that weather stripping be used. Since that time the weather stripping was put in and the violation was abated. Another complaint by the tenant is the snow removal. According to the code, the landlord is supposed to clean the common areas. The tenant has been cleaning the pathways when it snows. Mr. Curry stated that the BOH can address that problem when it becomes an issue. Ian Murray clarified that the complaint was regarding the inspector not doing his job. He stated that he sees no evidence that this was the case. The Chairman suggested that the public hearing be closed. Dr. Bogdasarian made a motion to adjourn the public hearing. Sandra Knipe seconded the motion. The public hearing adjourned at 5:55p.m. An open discussion among the board members took place. Mr. Curry pointed out, that the Board has the ability to modify or withdraw orders directed by the inspector or to take charge if there was failure to act by an inspector of the BOH. The BOH can also reconsider, rescind or issue orders as appropriate. Basically the Board needs to determine if there was enough evidence to order the owner to correct the problems if the inspector failed to do so. The first accusation is that the inspector failed to find violations of the code where such violations are claimed to exist. Sandra Knipe stated that the only thing the Board has to go on is the report. The temperature was taken and it was within the temperature range per code. Dr. Bogdasarian agreed. The tenant took no temperature reading to contradict the claim. He feels there is no indication that Mr. Burns did not do his job or the property is not in compliance in regards to the heat requirements. The Board agreed that the tenant failed to produce evidence that the temperature was not up to code. Ian Murray made a motion to deny the claim that the inspector failed to find violations of the law. Sandra Knipe seconded the motion. The second accusation is that the inspector’s failure to certify that such violations may endanger or materially impair the health, safety and wellbeing of the occupants. Dr. Bogdasarian felt that because no violations were found that this issue is irrelevant. The Board agreed. They can only deal with what has been presented to them. Minutes of the Meeting: Minutes of April 02, 2015 meeting were accepted as presented. Annual/Staff Reports: The 2013 Annual Report was presented. It includes all inspectional activities for 2013. After approval of the City Council, the report will go on file with the City Clerk. The first page explains what the BOH is and what it does as far as permitting and inspectional services. The second page identifies the nursing portion including communicable disease tracking and surveillance. The public health nurse also inspects body art establishments in the City. The third page is Title 5 & sewerage disposal which includes 7 percolation tests for new construction or repair. In 2013, fourteen new septic systems were installed, eight systems were repaired and three systems tied into City sewer. The numbers are down for 2013, but new construction is on the rise. As far as solid waste, the landfill is permitted to accept 390,000 tons annually. Due to greener habits including increased recycling and the economy, that figure is down to just over 200,000 tons. On the positive side, if the landfill is not reaching its permitted capacity, the end life is extended. The second part of solid waste is curbside collection. In 2013, the landfill took in less than 10,000 tons of trash from curbside and about 3,150 tons of recycled materials. Before the cart system in 2012, we were averaging about 16,000 tons of trash. Trash has decreased by about 40%. Recycle was averaging about 1,200 tons before the cart system. This figure has increased to over 3,000 tons of recycling. The cart system is doing what it was designed to do. 2013 was the second year of the Montachusett Public Health Network which is the District Incentive Grant or the regionalization efforts. Dr. Bogdasarian is the Medical Director of that group. This grant supports a part time inspector and a part time nurse. The towns included in the regionalization are paying an annual assessment of $500 per year. The staff is not covered but by year’s end the MPHN will be looking for ways to sustain the grant once funding is depleted. Mass in Motion is another grant that the BOH oversees. This is the Fun in Fitchburg effort to reduce obesity and increase physical activity. The grant has been renewed and we are now in year one of a three year grant with the potential for more years. This grant is a new grant but is an extension of a previous grant an in its sixth year of grant funding. Initially the grant was for $60,000 per year; it is now $40,000 per year. MOC is the sub- contractor for the grant. The nurse and the director and staff dedicate time to the grant, assisting with implementation of system, policy and changes within the City. It includes making healthy food accessible, increasing physical activity utilizing Fitchburg’s numerous parks and making streets safer by adopting new regulations geared for pedestrians and bikers. Public Health events basically include medication take back from residents who want to properly dispose of old and unwanted medication. There are also kiosks in all eleven towns included in the regionalization. Neighborhood cleanups and flu clinics are also included in the public health events section of this Annual Report. Ian Murray made a motion to accept the 2013 Annual Report. Dr. Bogdasarian seconded the motion. FY’16 Budget: Our Director went before Council for the FY’16 budget hearing on May 28. The only proposed cut was $40,000 to contract fees for curbside trash collection and contract services for landfill disposal. The final budget hearing will be determined on June 17, 2015. If the proposed cut takes place, our Director will be forced to cut services. There is a gas charge in the rubbish contract; if gas goes above $3.80 the BOH is charged additional fees and we receive credit if gas prices decrease. We are funded annually for nineteen yard waste collections. We have been utilizing only fourteen weeks of yard waste collections per year due to weather conditions. Ian Murray made a motion to object to the proposed cuts to contract fees and/or contract services to the FY’16 budget. Sandra Knipe seconded the motion. Health Foundation Grant Approval: Our Director submitted a grant request to the Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts for $75,000 regarding a program called “SECCED”. Approximately $42,000 is for a module called View Enforce. The inspectors all have tablets and with this program all inspections would be done electronically. The module costs about $30,000 to put into the tablets. The module would include electronic inspection reports and provides a tracking device for enforcement. Right now the inspectors take hand written notes and then type the reports. It will allow the inspectors to spend more time on the streets and less time at a computer. The second part of the grant will be implemented as “Re-imagine North of Main”. This is the Working Cities Challenge Grant that was also part of the cleanup effort on Saturday. The grant will be implemented in the North of Main area to start. We will also seek technical assistance on several strategies such as creating a record map of all abandoned properties in the City. We are also looking for technical assistance from the Community Progress Leadership Institute on how to strategically plan and collect the data, analyze it and form a strategy on how to address the issue. We are also going to create resources to develop a strategy for the North of Main properties. The project would begin in October 2015. At the end of twelve months the City will have created and implemented its first neighborhood action plan in the North of Main college area. By the end of that time all the software would be purchased and installed and categorized all the distressed properties. The BOH inspectors will be using their tablets and the electronic inspection system. We will have developed a comprehensive strategic housing plan to address abandoned and distressed housing in the city. Sandra Knipe asked who would be writing the grant. Mr. Curry responded that it would be himself, Liz Murphy, in the Housing Division of Community Development and also Mark Dohan of the Twin City CDC. The BOH should know by July whether or not we can apply for the grant. Sandra Knipe made a motion to approve the letter of intent for the “SECCED” grant. Ian Murray seconded the motion. Ian Murray made a motion to adjourn. Sandra Knipe seconded the motion. Meeting adjourned at 6:45p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Tina M. Kreidler Principal Clerk/Stenographer