If the document does not display above, click here
"Unfortunately, the Audit Report completely bypasses the main issue: Whether the combined permits granted under various contractors rises from "ministerial" processing to "discretionary" processing. In fact, the terms "ministerial" and "discretionary" are never mentioned in the audit. Apparently, it is legal and standard operating procedure for firms to use the names of subcontractors on individual permits, as they confirm was done here. However, the entire project is normally filed under the primary applicant, and that entire project is evaluated as to whether it requires additional processing. In this case, Blackwater used the contractors names to avoid combining the permits into the larger project, and thereby to avoid public scrutiny. The key issue that must be addressed by the city is the procedure followed in determining whether a project is ministerial or discretionary. What is that procedure and why is it not addressed?
Although I was not able to review the final plans because they were "lost," it is a concern that the ventilation system described in the second permit was not built as shown in the drawings. Did the auditor forget to compare what was built with the plans? You also must ask: How can a customer get a final approval if the drawings were missing from records?
Because of these glaring discrepancies in the audit report, it is clearly apparent that an outside audit is called for. This audit was two weeks late, conveniently timed to be released after the election, and omits the key issue at hand, perhaps to cover up the activities of the administration of the City.
Also, it does not consider the letter from Kelly Broughton which denied the occupancy permits. Why?