Corruption threats of the overhaul program

The regional overhaul program adopted by the city government does not take into account the real state of affairs and is rather focused on secret agreements with manufacturers and service providers of the housing and communal services system.

The regional capital repair program, designed for 25 years, is based on unreliable data, and a number of its provisions allow arbitrary disposal of financial resources and property of St. Petersburg residents.

The main corruption factor is the uncertainty of legal norms. There is a method for assessing a legislative act for corruption potential. Following it, we can state: the version of the program that was adopted on February 18 under pressure from the city administration is illegal. According to the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the procedure for preparing and approving a regional program is established by the law of the subject of the Federation. Our program is formed based on criteria unknown to anyone. And its introductions are most likely related to corrupt agreements within the housing and communal services system.

For example, for 2014 the program envisaged the replacement of cold water supply risers in 187 houses, and for the period 2015–2017. - in 2008 houses, i.e. approximately 700 houses per year. Through what resources? Why did you decide to focus on water supply systems in the first place? I asked the head of the Housing Committee Valery Shiyan about this, but he could not answer anything.

It must be clearly stated what exactly is included in the water supply repair work. But this is not the case. It is not known whether this includes work on the bottling system and the organization of heating stations in individual houses. Or it is simply supposed to quickly replace the risers - and that’s all. I am sure that the pipe suppliers and those who will carry out this work are known. Journalists can check: who is engaged in the relevant supplies and installation today, is there a certain monopolistic position of one of the organizations?

The ratio of residential and non-residential premises for which the program provides for basement repairs also raises suspicions. Having compared the data, we found that the share of non-residential premises included in the list is much higher than their share in multi-apartment residential buildings in general. So, in the house on the embankment. Kryukova Kanal, 23, letter N, non-residential premises account for 99.9% - there is only one apartment, the rest of the area is occupied by a hostel. In the building on Sadovaya, 40, letter B, non-residential premises account for up to 80%; the office of one of the major telecom operators is located here. In both buildings, as well as in dozens of others (also quite healthy in appearance), renovation of the basements is planned for the near future - 2016.

This suggests that the owners of non-residential premises are using funds through the Housing Committee to repair basements, and then use them profitably. And there are many such examples in which “gifts” for commercial organizations are guessed. Meanwhile, in order to abandon the work included in the program or postpone it to a later date, or replace it with something truly relevant, a decision of the general meeting is necessary. This is a requirement of federal law. But what kind of decision can the general meeting make if, as in the case of the house on the Kryukov Canal, there is only one apartment there?

According to the Housing Committee, when drawing up the program, criteria such as duration of operation, technical condition (wear) and the achievement of any structures in an unacceptable or pre-emergency condition were taken into account. However, no relationship between them is visible in the document. A high wear rate does not mean that such structures will be taken care of before those that are simply older. For example, the service life of a foundation is 50 years. But it has already been exceeded four times for most houses. It would seem that all of them should be included in the repair plan as soon as possible, but this does not happen. In fact, it is proposed to first replace utility systems in buildings that have not undergone major repairs. However, there are many examples when the networks in such houses were changed quite recently - three, five years ago. But the program for the coming years plans to repair them.

And for those facilities where the condition is catastrophic and nothing has been done for decades, nothing at all is planned for the period until 2030. Thus, in relation to house 23, building 2, on the 16th line of Vasilyevsky Island, there is a housing inspection report on the need to repair utility networks - but the program only specifies it for 2030–2032.

During the certification of residential buildings (for which about 600 million budget rubles were spent), the contractor did not conduct a technical inspection of the condition of structures and engineering systems. These indicators are not reflected in the program in any way.

What on earth was the money spent on? We are told that the data sheet includes 600 factors. But look what's really packed there. I think that the information was entered according to documents from the Soviet period, passports compiled at the same time. They just copied it from there. Well, maybe they added something based on the observations of the janitors. Representatives of the Housing Committee at a meeting in the Legislative Assembly assured under the transcript that an inspection of structures and networks was being carried out. I consider this statement to be false. I believe that this will now be dealt with by the investigative authorities.

Today, when the two pilot territories are being surveyed, the Gorod company and the construction committee (acting as the customer) do not find any data on the current state of utility networks and structures, only historical ones.

Half of the planned overhaul work is not relevant.

Budget funds are pre-allocated to everything, but the really important work that should be done first is not taken into account at all in the program. With this approach, the 10 billion allocated for the year (7 from the budget, 3 collected from citizens) will be “cut up” without much benefit for the condition of the houses. And what is actually required will be offered to residents to pay for themselves. Or they will increase the monthly payment for major repairs.

Meanwhile, many of our houses are in pre-emergency condition. On Vasilyevsky Island alone, according to the data presented by the district administration, there are 46 of these. In one, cracks are opening, in another, a beam is collapsing, in the third, all engineering systems are rotten... It would seem that such situations should be eliminated first. But none of the 46 houses mentioned are included in the program. After standing for two or three years without repair, they will fall into the emergency category. The program generally does not have such a section as the repair of structures in disrepair. Although it is in the Gradkodex.

At a government meeting, I asked a question: why were the housing inspection acts recognizing structures as requiring urgent major repairs not taken into account in the program? The governor asks the leadership of the housing inspection: why weren’t such data transferred to the Housing Committee? So, they answer, we handed over everything that was demanded of us. What did they ask you for? It turns out - only data on the size of residential and non-residential premises in apartment buildings. That's all.

Our municipal commission insists on the need to change the law on major repairs - to include provisions on the procedure for preparing the program and the requirements for it, and to prescribe the scope of work included in each of its points.

Introduce mandatory monitoring of all citizens' appeals and acts of the Housing Inspectorate, as well as data on technical condition obtained in previous years and available to district administrations. If there are statements from legal entities or individuals about the alarming state of structures, oblige inspections to be carried out. And if, based on the results of the inspection, structures are identified that are in an unacceptable condition, work on their repair should be included for the next three years. Isolating truly urgent tasks will save huge amounts of money in the future. A priority work plan can be drawn up this year, an inspection can be carried out during the same period, and then by the end of the year we will have all the proposals for updating the program.

The very concept of “inspection” appeared in the City Code only in 2012. If the “inspection” that existed before is allowed to be carried out only by the owners themselves or by agreement with the administration, then the inspection can be carried out compulsorily. But the procedure for carrying it out is not legally defined (it is established by local self-government bodies, in our case - by the Legislative Assembly). The Commission on Municipal Economy proposed, in order to avoid problems with the governor's veto, to instruct the government of St. Petersburg to work out the procedure for conducting the inspection. But, unfortunately, it has not yet been accepted. And without it, the inspection cannot be carried out. The draft made by KUGI defines only the administrative procedure. Whereas a procedure is necessary for technical and scientific confirmation of the condition of the inspected structures. Without which, the act with the signatures of administration representatives will be simply a fiction, a dummy.

To develop the required inspection procedure, it is necessary to involve specialists from the housing and construction committees.

We believe it is necessary to expand the scope of work periods defined by the program. Now the step is three years. But the problem is that, once approved, the program cannot be changed in the direction of postponing work to a later date. So all the funds collected for major repairs will have to be spent on “whatever” already prescribed in the program - and not on what is actually required. To gain freedom of maneuver and the ability to direct money to priority needs, you should take a broader step (for example, taking the period 2015–2025).

According to federal law, changing the overhaul program is the prerogative of the government of the subject of the Federation. Nobody else has the right to do this. Our deputies can only determine the procedure for adoption, but not the program itself. In these circumstances, there seems to be only one way out: to cancel the one already adopted and approve another one. Having developed it taking into account the criteria we propose. Only such a mechanism will allow us to abandon the appearance of repairs in favor of really necessary work, promptly included in the program as objectively necessary without additional fees from citizens.