Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:19]

TESTIFY THOSE THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD SIGN IN AT THE DOOR. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 8, 2020 MEETING.

ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? IF NOT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT AS WRITTEN.

>> I MAKE A MOTION WE ACCEPT THEM AS WRITTEN.

>> I HAVE A MOTION. >> SECOND BY MR. SCHRADER.

THE MEETING HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS WRITTEN.

>> MR. ALLRED. >> MR. MCCOLLUM.

ROLL CALL. ROLL CALL.

[MINUTES]

AT THIS TIME WE NEED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES ON THE CANCELED MEETING FROM FEBRUARY 5. AS BAD AS I HATE TO ASK THIS QUESTION, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS?

MOTION. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> ROLL CALL PLEASE.

ROLL CALL. ROLL CALL.

MOTION CARRIES. >> MAYBE YOU SHOULD'VE ASKED FOR US SHOW OF HANDS AS TO WHO WAS HERE.

>> THE BUILDINGS MUST BE SECURED AND THE LOT CLEAN AND MODE BY THE OWNER WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER RECEIVING A RESULT OF THIS HEARING. IF THIS IS NOT DONE THE SUZIE MAY DO SO AND BUILD THE OWNER. IN ANY CASE WHICH ORDERS THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES BUT THE OWNER FAILS THE ORDER, THE CITY MAY DEM DEMOLISH.

ANY APPEAL MUST BE FILED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE PARTY RECEIVES NOTICE OF THIS BOARD'S DECISION.

ANY APPEAL. AT THE HEARING YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.

SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME NEEDED TO COMPLETE REPAIRS, SPECIFIC SCOPE OF REPAIR WORK TO BE COMPLETED AND THE COST ESTIMATES FOR WORK TO BE DONE BY LICENSED BONDED CONTRACTORS SUCH AS ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING AND AIR CONDITIONING.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT YOU AT THE HEARING. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE FILE ON THE PROPERTY AT THE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIOR TO THE HEARING.

AND THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF FOR THE

PURPOSE OF QUESTIONS AT THE >> WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE

[I. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 14-024: 1002 Mulberry St. (I 2044-fl HUGHES OT ABL), Owner: Mattson, Kimberly]

READY FOR OUR FIRST CASE. >> GOOD MORNING.

THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR ACCOMMODATION PROGRAM.

WE HAVE A TOTAL OF SIX CASES FOR OUR AGENDA TODAY.

THIS WAS OUR PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OUT FOR ALL SIX CASES THAT WILL BE PRESENTED. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER THREE A, CASE NUMBER 14 -- 042, ADDRESS 1002 MULBERRY STREET. THE RECORD SEARCH SHOWS COUNTY RECORDS NAME KIMBERLY MATSON AS THE OWNER.

IT SHOWS HER AS THE OWNER. SECRETARY OF STATE, IS NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME, THE TAX RECORDS AND MUNICIPALITY WERE NOT EQUITABLE. UTILITY RECORDS HAVE BEEN ACTIVE

[00:05:01]

SINCE 916 - 2012.

THIS IS THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME STRUCTURAL ISSUES, THE ROOF CEILING CAVING IN, THIS IS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

WE HAVE SOME ELECTRICAL ISSUES, BOXES AND LOOSE WIRES.

SOME STRUCTURAL ISSUES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING AS WELL. YOU CAN SEE THE ROOF CAVING IN.

THIS IS THE REAR WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

WE HAVE SOME STRUCTURAL ISSUES AND PLUMBING ISSUES GOING ON THERE AND WE DID HAVE TO EDIT THE PHOTO TO COVER UP SOME VULGAR GRAFFITI. THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN BACK IN MAY AND WE HAVE SOME CEILING CAVING IN AND MISSING FLOORING.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S DAYLIGHT COMING IN THROUGH SOME HOLES IN THE CEILING. THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF THE INTERIOR WHERE THERE IS MORE ROOF DAMAGE, SOME IN ADEQUATE PLUMBING IN THE RESTROOM IN WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE KITCHEN, SOME ELECTRICAL ISSUES, WIRE PROBLEMS THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE THAT CONSISTS OF DECEMBER 16, 2014 THIS PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED. UTILITY LETTERS AND CONDEMNED LETTERS WERE SENT. IN 2016 A 6060 LETTER WAS SET, ANOTHER INITIAL LETTER WAS SENT TO THE LIEN HOLDER.

2017 A NEW NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION TO THE OWNER AND LIEN HOLDER. MAY 15, 2017 SENT NOTICED OF BOB'S TO OWNER AND LIEN HOLDER. JUNE 2017 WE SENT BOB'S DECISION LETTER WHICH WERE BOARD ORDER 3060 ON THAT DATE, APRIL 9, 2018 THE PROPERTY IS POSSIBLY GOING TO SOLD AT A TAX SALE IN THE NEXT 6 - 9 MONTHS DUE TO THE WOOD TAXES AND THERE IS A LAWSUIT PENDING ON THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME.

JUNE 18, 2019 A DEED WAS FILED FOR THE PROPERTY AFTER BEING PURCHASED AT TAX SALE. SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 A NEW 3060 LETTER AND INITIAL CONDEMNATION LETTER WAS SENT TO THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER. SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 PHONE CALL FROM MR. MATTSON, THE HUSBAND OF THE PROPERTY OWNER KIMBERLY MATSON AND SAID HE PURCHASED IT IN JUNE OF 2019.

HE REQUESTED AN EXTENSION TO PULL PERMITS OR TO DO ANY RENOVATIONS ON THE STRUCTURE DUE TO THE REDEMPTION PERIOD ENDING IN DECEMBER. HE DID NOT WANT TO MAKE ANY RENOVATIONS AND RISK THE HOMEOWNER TO COME BACK AND PURCHASE AFTER HE PUT WORK INTO IT.

THE EXTENSION WAS APPROVED. FEBRUARY 11, 2020 THERE WERE NO PERMITS THAT HAD BEEN PULLED AT THAT TIME.

FEBRUARY 12, 2020, BOB'S NOTICE WAS MAILED AND POSTED ON THE PROPERTY FOR TODAY'S MEETING. A RECENT UPDATE, AS OF YESTERDAY THE SON OF THE OWNER SPOKE AND STATED THAT HIS PARENTS WERE OUT OF THE COUNTRY FOR A FUNERAL AND HE ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYTHING HE COULD DO AND HE INFORMED HIM TO COME TODAY'S MEETING AND SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THE PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST PURSUANT TO CHAPTER EIGHT.

INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARDS, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING AND FAULTY PROTECTION.

THEY ORDER THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER WITHIN DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> COULD YOU EXPLAIN SOMETHING ABOUT, GO BACK ONE WHERE THE OWNER DID NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING AND MAKE ANY RENOVATIONS A IN RISK OF THE FORMER OWNER COMING BACK TO PURCHASE IT.

WHAT'S THE RULE ON THAT. ONCE YOU PURCHASE THAT AT A TAX

SALE, DON'T YOU OWN IT. >> YES, YOU OWN IT BUT THE

[00:10:03]

PREVIOUS OWNER HAS A RIGHT WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DATE THAT WAS PURCHASED TO COME BACK PRICE THAT THE NEW OWNERY AT TH- PURCHASED IT.

SO THE PREVIOUS OWNER CAN COME BACK AND STILL PURCHASE THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE WITHOUT HAVING TO COMPENSATE FOR ANY

RENOVATIONS OR REPAIR. >> THE REDEMPTION PERIOD WOULD'VE ENDED IN DECEMBER SO WE WERE KIND OF EXPECTING FOR PERMITS TO BE PULLED BY JANUARY BUT NOTHING WAS DONE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE, THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK OR TESTIFY TODAY TO ANY CASE PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE AT THIS HEARING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 14 -- 024, OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

THE RECORD. >> MY NAME IS DEVON, I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY PARENTS. THEY HAD BEEN IN CANADA FOR BEREAVEMENT FOR MY GRANDMOTHER WHO HAD PASSED LAST FRIDAY.

SINCE THEY HAD BEEN IN CANADA ABOUT LENGTH OF TIME, THEY ASKED ME TOO COME IN THEIR STEAD TO ASK IF WE CAN REQUEST ANOTHER EXTENSION UNTIL THEY CAN COME BACK AFTER THE FUNERAL THIS WEEK SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND FILE FOR PERMITS AND ACTUALLY GET THINGS DONE NEXT WEEK SINCE THE TAX REDEMPTION HAD JUST RECENTLY LAPSED. THEY ARE JUST REQUESTING AN

ADDITIONAL EXTENSION. >> OKAY SO THEIR INTENTION IS TO

REHABILITATE. >> YES SIR.

THEY HAD GIVEN ME APPROXIMATELY 40000 THAT THEY WILL BE PUTTING INTO THAT PROPERTY TO IMPROVE IT UP TO CODE SO THAT WE CAN PUT IT

BACK ON THE MARKET. >> IN YOUR PREPARED TO START

THAT IMMEDIATELY. >> YES, SIR, WHEN THEY COME BACK. AND WHENEVER THE NEXT HEARING IS, OF COURSE WE WILL SHOW A PROGRESSION.

JUST DUE TO THE UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES, EVERYTHING IS MESH TOGETHER AT THE WRONG TIME AND SINCE THERE IN CANADA THERE'S NOTHING THEY CAN DO SO FAR.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 14024 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION OR MOTION.

>> COULD ASK A QUESTION OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE. HIS REHABILITATION OF VIABLE OPTION FOR THIS PROPERTY? OBVIOUSLY I'M CONCERNED THAT

THERE IS A LOT OF DAMAGE THERE. >> SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PROFESSION, THE SURFACES OF SHEATHING AND SKIN AND THAT SORT OF THING, I CAN'T REALLY SAY ABOUT THE STRUCTURE, JUST HOW INADEQUATE THINGS ARE, BUT HEARING WHAT WE UNDERSTAND THEY ARE WILLING TO SINK ABOUT 40 GRAND INTO IT, THAT COULD CHANGE THE LOOKS OF IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT OUR STAFF NEEDS TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS THING AND SEE STRUCTURALLY HOW SOUND IT IS. A LOT OF TIMES THERE'S A LOT OF MASONRY HERE THAT CAN SKIN THINGS AND THERE'S A LOT OF JUST WOOD FRAMED AREAS WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS EXPOSED IS NOT PRETTY, BUT IT'S NOT EXACTLY, IT COULD BE COVERED UP AND PROTECTED AGAIN AND HAVE VIABILITY.

[00:15:06]

I'M SEEING FLOORING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW LEVEL THE STRUCTURE IS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

THE SIX MONTH PERIOD AFTER THE TAX SALE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAD A RATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE RULES ON IT SO IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THERE IS VIABILITY OF A SECOND CHANCE HERE.

>> IF I MAY INTERJECT OR JUST GET CONFIRMATION FROM MR. DEVON WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM OWNERSHIP AND IN ORDER TO ALLOW PERMITS TO BE PULLED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GIVE UP PERMITS WITHOUT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAN CONFIRM OWNERSHIP.

IF HE CAN COME UP AND LET US KNOW WHEN HIS PARENTS PURCHASE

THE PROPERTY. >> AT THIS TIME LET ME REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 14024.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> MY NAME IS DEVON, I'M ON HERE ON BEHALF OF 4000 MULBERRY STREET. I DO NOT HAVE ANY DEEDS I CAN PROVIDE BUT MY MOTHER KIMBERLY SHOULD HAVE THE SHERIFF'S DEED ON FILE SINCE SHE HAD PAID ALL THE OUTSTANDING TAX OF 2018TH AND 2019 AND WHEN SHE HAD PURCHASED, AT THE TAX SALE, I% BELIEVE THEY SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED HER THE SHERIFF'S DEED THAT SHOULD BE ON FILE IN THE COUNTY.

>> THANK YOU. >> AT THIS TIME I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 14024 AND OPEN UP THE FLOOR AGAIN FOR

DISCUSSION. >> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO MR. DEVON ON THAT. THAT IS CONFIRMATION.

WE DO HAVE PROOF OF THE DEED. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS STILL SAME OWNERSHIP SO JUST TO CONFIRM AND YOU CAN PROCEED

WITH YOUR DISCUSSION. >> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTION BECAUSE I SHARE YOUR SAME ISSUE THAT IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO WAIT SIX MONTHS.

>> YES IT WOULD BE. >> AND $40000 IS NOT A SMALL CHUNK OF CHANGE. THAT IS SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT.

>> AND I MIGHT SAY THAT I DON'T KNOW IF WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER TABLING THIS AND HAVING HIS PARENTS RETURN OR IF IT'S A MATTER OF GRANTING THE EXTE EXTENSION, THAT MAY BE PART OF

THIS DISCUSSION. >> TO MEET A TABLE WOULD RESULT IN THE RETURN OF THE CASE AT THE END OF THE TABLE.

IF THE FOLKS RETURN FROM OUT OF THE COUNTRY AND START THEIR PLAN OF ACTION AND GET THEIR PERMITS IN ORDER, THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THAT TO RETURN TO US IN MY OPINION SO, PERHAPS A GRANT OF 30 DAYS TO PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION AND ACQUIRE PERMITS MIGHT

BE IN ORDER. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THE TIMELINE MR. MORRIS.

IT APPEARS FROM THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN THAT THE WIFE OWNS THIS PROPERTY AND THEN THE HUSBAND BOUGHT IT FROM HER.

>> NO, SIR, THE HUSBAND CALLED ON THE WIFE'S BEHALF BACK IN

SEPTEMBER 27. >> SO THE MATSON SPOT THIS.

>> YES OR. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> MR. WATSON IF YOU'RE PREPARED FOR A MOTION, IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, I BE PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE OWNER HAS 30 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION INCLUDING FAIR COST ESTIMATE AND IF THIS IS DONE WITHIN 60 DAYS

[00:20:01]

THEN ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHOULD BE COMPLETED BY THE

EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS. >> MOTION TO PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A 30 DAY, TO PROVIDE PLAN OF ACTION AND PERMITS WITHIN 30 DAYS. IF THAT IS DONE.

IF THAT IS DONE ALL FINAL.

SECOND BY MR. SCHRADER. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL PLEASE. BEFORE.

MOTION ARRIED. >> A BOXER.

[2. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 17-009: 633 S II St. (OT ABILENE BLK 208 ANDERSON 1-A, LOT 7-12), Owner: Abilenc Courts Development Corp LLC]

NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA, ITEM 3B, CASE 17009633 SOUTH 11TH STREET. THE RECORD SHOWS THE WARRANTY CORPORATION LLC AS THE OWNER. THEY SHOW ABILENE COURTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO BE THE OWNER.

SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS DON KNIGHT TO BE THE REGISTERED AGENT. TAX RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY NOT APPLICABLE, ALSO SHOWS MAY 4, 006 AND MAY SHOW ABILENE COURTS TO BE OWNER. THIS WAS THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE FRONT DOOR SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE NORTHWEST CORNER FRONT. THIS IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE THERE IS GRAFFITI AND SOME BUCKLING WITH THE WALL.

LARGE CRACKS AND PIECES OF THE WALL ARE MISSING AS WELL.

THERE IS NO ELECTRIC METER. THIS IS THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THERE'S LARGE CRACKS AND PIECES OF THE WALL MISSING. THERE ARE MORE AREAS WHERE THERE ARE LARGE CRACKS AND PIECES MISSING FROM THE WALL.

THIS IS THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND MORE PIECES OF THE WALL ARE STARTING TO CRUMBLE AND FALL AWAY.

THIS IS THE EXTERIOR OF THE WALL THROUGHOUT THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE WALLS ARE STARTING TO BULGE OUT.

THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE, THERE IS SOME ROTTING IN THE FLOOR FROM INADEQUATE ROOFING.

THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE COURTYARD.

THERE IS ANOTHER SHOT OF THE INTERIOR OF THE COURTYARD.

TIMELINE OF EVENTS SHOW FEBRUARY 21, 2017 REPORTED THE PROPERTY BEING BROKEN INTO AN UNSECURED AND THE NEIGHBORS WERE CONCERNED. FEBRUARY 22, 2017 INITIAL NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION AND UTILITY SHUT OFF LETTERS WERE SENT.

FEBRUARY 52018TH OWNER SUBMITTED A PLAN OF ACTION ASKING FOR HOLD ON PROCEEDINGS DUE TO POSSIBLE HISTORIC VALUE.

JULY 20 NEIGHBOR COMPLAINED ABOUT VAGRANTS AND FIRE IN THE STRUCTURE. SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION DISCUSSED AND TOOK NO ACTION AND TURNED IT OVER TO BOB'S FOR A DECISION. OCTOBER 8, 2019, DELL STATED HE WOULD COME IN TO DISCUSS PLANS ON OCTOBER 11, 2019.

HE SENT NOTICE, HE WAS SENT NOTICE NOVEMBER 2019, OCTOBER 11, 2019 THERE WAS NO FURTHER PROGRESS MADE AND HE DID NOT MEET WITH THE STAFF THAT DAY.

NOVEMBER 6, 2019 WAS THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS MEETING, THE BOARD ORDER TO PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION WITHIN 60 DAYS WITH THE DOCUMENTED TIMELINE FOR FUNDING AND A DOCUMENTED UPDATE AND 90 DAYS WITH SPECIFIC PROGRESS.

ON DECEMBER 11, 2019, THERE IS A PHONE CALL TO MR. RANKIN AND HE REQUESTED A PLAN OF ACTION AS HE WAS UNCLEAR WHAT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE BOARD ORDER WORK.

IT WAS SENT VIA E-MAIL AND ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE TO MEET AT THE PROPERTY THURSDAY DECEMBER 13, 2019.

DECEMBER 13, 2019, MET WITH HIM ALONG WITH THE SUPERVISOR AT THE

[00:25:05]

PROPERTY. HE SUBMITTED A PLAN OF ACTION SAYING HE WAS PLANNING TO HIRE HIM TO PLACE A METAL PIPE CALM AND SUPPORT ALONG THE EXTERIOR WHERE THE WALL WAS BUCKLING, IN ADDITION HE PLAN TO HAVE MR. JACKSON ENCLOSED THE NORTH TO PREVENT UNWANTED ACCESS. HE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS NOT ABLE.

HE WAS REMINDED TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE WITH 60 DAYS, WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE BOARD ORDER REGARDING THE FUNDING FOR THE RESTORATION. JANUARY 3, 2020 I RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM HIM STATING HE WAS AT AN IMPASSE WITH OBTAINING FUNDING ON THE RENOVATIONS. HE PROPOSED TO DEMOLISH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY REQUESTING ONLY TO LEAVE THE FAçADE OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY STANDING.

ON JANUARY 6, 2020 AN E-MAIL WAS SENT TO MR. RANKIN STATING THAT BUILDING OFFICIALS DID APPROVE HIS REQUEST FOR LEAVING THE NORTH SIDE FAçADE STANDING WITH THE CONTINGENCY THAT MR. RANKIN HIGHER CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL TO CONFIRM IT WOULD BE SAFE TO LEAVE THAT PART OF THE STRUCTURE STANDING.

MR. RANKIN RESPONDED STATING HE WOULD HIRE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION GROUP TO COMPLY WITH HIS REQUEST.

JANUARY 23, 2020, AN E-MAIL WAS SENT TO HIM REQUESTING THE STATUS UPDATE WITH THE DEMOLITION GROUP THAT HE WAS GOING TO HIRE. JR 272020 HE RESPONDED VIA E-MAIL STATING HE HIRED AML ENVIRONMENTAL TO GET A QUOTE FOR DEMOLITION AND WOULD INFORM US OF THE PRICE AS SOON AS HE HEARD FROM THEM. THE FEBRUARY 10, 2020 THERE WAS NO FURTHER UPDATE AND NOTE DEMOLITION PERMITS HAVE BEEN POLLED. FEBRUARY 12, 2020, THE BOB'S NOTICE WAS SENT AND POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE.

I DO HAVE ADDITIONAL UPDATES AS OF FEBRUARY 6, 2020 MR. RANKIN DID CALL ME BY PHONE AND STATED HE HAD BEEN QUOTED A COST TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE THAT HE COULD NOT MEET OR PAY FOR THAT SO HE ASKED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NEXT.

I EXPLAINED WE WOULD TAKE THIS UPDATE BEFORE THE BOARD AND THEY WOULD DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THE STRUCTURE.

HE REQUESTED A LIST OF CONTRACTORS AS WELL THAT WERE USED BY THE CITY FOR DEMOLITION ON FIGURE 282020 HE WAS E-MAIL.LIST OF CONTRACTORS. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO FIND THE PROPERTY A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER EIGHT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST. INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD EMMA NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION THEY ORDERED THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MORRIS? >> THANK YOU MR. MORRIS.

AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE CASE, OPEN THE HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 17 -- ZERO ZERO NINE AND ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR

THE RECORD. >> DALE RANKIN.

NOT SWEAR IN BEFORE WE STARTED. >> PLEASE RAISE RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE IN THIS CASE IS THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU.

>> YES. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME UPDATES SINCE I TALKED WITH JOSH RECENTLY.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS PROPERTY FOR US HAS BEEN THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET TAX CREDITS TO FIND THE RENOVATION LIKE WE THOUGHT.

WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO. I ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY IN 2015 AS I TOLD Y'ALL LAST TIME WITH THE PURPOSE OF SAVING IT BECAUSE I JUST LOVE THE PROPERTY AND I DIDN'T WANT TO SEE IT DESTROYED SO, WE'VE KIND OF BEEN WORKING TOWARD THAT GOAL EVER SINCE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. WHEN WE FOUND OUT WE WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE SO MUCH OF THE WALL, THAT MADE THE TAX CREDITS, AT LEAST AS FAR AS WE COULD TELL UNATTAINABLE SO AT THAT POINT WE BEGAN LOOKING FOR OTHER INVESTORS TO COME IN ON A

[00:30:03]

STRICTLY COMMERCIAL BASIS TO HELP REBUILD THE PROPERTY.

THAT HAS NOT PROVED SUCCESSFUL TO THIS POINT.

THAT LED ME TO THINK OKAY, HOW DO WE SATISFY THE CITY TO THE SAFETY OF THIS PROPERTY, GIVING THEM TIME TO ORGANIZE OUR FINANCES, LET'S SAY. SO WHEN I MET JOSH OUT THERE, I DESCRIBED THE PLAN I HAD OF KIND OF SHORING UP THE EXTERIOR WALLS WHERE THERE BUCKLING.

ENCLOSING THAT FRONT AREA ENTIRELY WITH EXPANDED METAL SO THAT NOTHING COULD GET IN THAT FRONT SIDE.

I DIDN'T GET A QUOTE ON THAT OFFICIALLY.

I HAD A CONTRACTOR THERE AND HE MEASURED AND DID EVERYTHING BUT HE NEVER QUOTED. IN THE MEANTIME I GOT TO THINKING, THAT MAYBE, IF WE SPENT ALL THAT MONEY SHORING THE PROPERTY UP THAT WOULD JUST BE A TEMPORARY FIX AND THAT MONEY WOULD PRETTY MUCH BE LOST ONCE THE RENOVATION STARTED BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT ALL DOWN TO START THE RENOVATION.

I WAS GETTING FRUSTRATED AND I THOUGHT OKAY, MAYBE THE BEST THING TO DO IS JUST DEMOLISH THE WHOLE QUADRA ANGLE PART OF BUILDING BECAUSE THE WALLS CONTAIN OBSESSED US IN THAT IS WHAT HAS MADE THE THING SO DIFFICULT FROM THE BEGINNING.

SO I CHECKED AROUND AND I DID TALK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP. THEY SEEM TO BE ONE OF THE TOP LOCAL FIRMS TO DO THIS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OBSESSED US. THEY WROTE UP A QUOTE TO DEMOLISH, LET'S CALL IT THE STUCCO WALLS PART OF THE BUILDING WHICH IS THREE SIDES OF THE QUADRANGLE BUT LEAVE THAT NORTH BRICK. HE QUOTED ME THAT AND THE PRICE WAS $85000. THERE IS THE COPY OF HIS QUOTE.

I'M LOOKING AT THIS GOING I'M NOT UP TO SPENDING $85000 ON THIS PROPERTY SO NOW WHAT DO WE DO.

SINCE JOSH AND I HAVE TALKED RECENTLY, I'VE BEEN TALKING WITH JOSH BLACK HERE OF ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAK, AND IT DAWNED ON US BOTH THAT MY INTENTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO SAVE THIS PROPERTY FOR WHATEVER REASON. WE PURCHASED THE ENTIRE CITY BLOCK AND I SPENT MONEY ON ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS TO GET MAKE THIS PROPERTY A LODGING LIKE IT WAS, MODERN-DAY MOTOR COURT, IF YOU WILL. I THOUGHT IF I CAN'T DO THE DEMOLITION THEN MAYBE THE BEST THING TO DO WOULD BE TO DONATE THIS PROPERTY TO ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAK BECAUSE THEY HAVE RESOURCES THAT I DON'T HAVE.

THEY HAVE ACCESS TO PEOPLE AND FUNDING THAT I MYSELF DON'T HAVE AND I TALKED TO JOSH AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY AND TAKE ON THE PROJECT OF SAVING IT SO I AM WILLING TO DO THAT, TO DONATE IT TO ABILENE PRESERVATION.

WHAT I WOULD ASK FOR AT THIS POINT IS AN EXTENSION TO GIVE US A MONTH OR TWO TO WORK OUT THESE DETAILS AND GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO COME UP WITH THE PLAN, AND IT MAY BE THAT THEY WILL DO JUST WHAT WE DID AND SAY LET'S DEMOLISH THE ABSCESS TO SPARTA THIS BUILDING. I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS IN THEIR HANDS BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE BETTER EQUIPPED TO SAVE IT THAN I AM. SO IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, OTHERWISE I WANTED JOSH TO TALK FROM THE ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAGUE PERSPECTIVE AND TELL YOU WHAT HIS IDEAS

ARE. >> OKAY.

>> STATE MY NAME AND ADDRESS. GOOD MORNING MY NAME IS JOSH LOCKE, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF THE ABILENE PRESERVATION BOARD SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JIM STEWART WHO PASSED AWAY A FEW MONTHS AGO.

>> WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS. >> 97 GLENN AVENUE ABILENE

[00:35:04]

TEXAS. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO THIS IS DIFFICULT FOR EVERYONE, MOSTLY BECAUSE OF ASBESTOS IS A RISK INVOLVED FOR WHOEVER HAS TO TAKE THIS PROJECT ON, EVEN IF THE CITY WOULD TAKE THIS ON THEY WOULD INCUR THAT OUR GIFT ACCEPTANCE POLICY HAS SOME PRETTY STRICT RULES ABOUT IT AND IT'S DIFFICULT, WE NEED TO ENSURE THE PROPERTY IF WE WERE TO TAKE IT ON. IT HAS TO BE AN UNRESTRICTED GIFT IF IT WERE TO BE DONE. ALL THIS HAPPEN PRETTY MUCH IN THE LAST 48 HOURS SO IT OF COURSE HAS TO HAVE BOARD APPROVAL. THE PICTURES FROM JANUARY, HE'S MADE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO SOME OF THE STRUCTURES WALLS AND OF COURSE TAKEN DOWN THE VEGETATION THAT LED TO, WE INVITED PRESERVATION TEXAS AND THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION IN NOVEMBER TO TOUR THAT PROPERTY AND SEVERAL OTHERS AT RISK AND THEY WERE ABLE TO WALK THE PROPERTY.

IT GAVE THEM A NEWFOUND INTEREST IN SAVING THE PROPERTY.

IT IS ON THEIR TOP TEN LIST OF MOST ENDANGERED PROPERTIES IN TEXAS. IT IS THE LAST MOTOR COURT OF ITS KIND ON THE BANKHEAD HIGHWAY AND WHILE THEY CAN'T FUND ANY OF THE PROJECT, THEY ARE READY TO MAKE SPECIAL STIPULATIONS THAT WOULD ALOW FOR A DIFFERENT KIND OF TAX CREDIT THAT'S DIFFICULT FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPERS TO ACHIEVE.

SO WE DO HAVE E-MAILS FROM THEM, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY NEED TO BE PART OF THE RECORD BUT NORMALLY THE RULES ARE 70 - 30.

YOU TRY TO KEEP 30% OF THE STRUCTURE INTACT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROPERLY RENOVATE. THE PROPERTY OTHERWISE IS CONSIDERED NEW CONSTRUCTION AND INVALIDATES THE TAX CREDITS, GRANTS AND OTHER. IF WE WERE TO BRING IN PROFESSIONAL RENOVATION CREW IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE COSTLY, THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE $2.8 MILLION FIGURE WHICH RIGHT NOW THE ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAGUE IS NOT PREPARED TO RAISE THOSE FUNDS. WHAT WE CAN DO, IF WE GET A 30 DAY EXTENSION ON THAT, IT GIVES US TIME TO SPEAK TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION, GET THE VOTE TO ACCEPT THE PROPERTY AND PUT IT INTO THE HANDS OF IT ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAGUE.

FROM THERE THE WORST CASE SCENARIO IS THE FAçADE IS KEPT IN THE REAR OF THE BUILDING IS REMOVED AND A DEVELOPER OF A DIFFERENT SORT CAN COME IN, PUT A PROPERTY BEHIND IT THAT CAPITALIZES ON THAT HISTORIC PIECE OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER, AND FOR THOSE REASONS TEXAS HISTORICAL REGION IS WILLING TO WORK WITH US OR ANY DEVELOPER THAT MIGHT COME IN. WERE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF RENOVATING, WERE IN THE BUSINESS OF PRESERVING AND TRYING TO PASS IT ON TO THE BEST POSSIBLE PERSON WHO WILL KEEP UP THAT HISTORICAL SITE, BUT AS WE SAID THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION.

THE EXTENSION WOULD BE A PLAN OF ACTION OF 30 DAYS.

AFTER THAT POINT, IF WE CAN MAKE THINGS HAPPEN, IT MIGHT COME TO THE POINT WHERE DEMOLITION IS EMINENT.

WE WANT TO AVOID THAT AT ALL COST AND I WISH I COULD OFFER YOU MORE AT THIS POINT. THE GIFT CAN'T BE ACCEPTED UNLESS WE CAN GET IT INSURED. TO GET IT INSURED IT MIGHT REQUIRE WE REVISIT HERE AND LIFT THE CONDEMNATION NOTICE PURSUANT TO SOME IMMEDIATE ACTION, BUT WE NEED TO FORMULATE A PLAN OF ACTION IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS. THIS IS BASICALLY A STAY OF EXECUTION, A LAST DITCH EFFORT TO TRY TO SAVE THIS HISTORIC

PROPERTY. >> SO YOUR 30 DAY TIMELINE FOR YOUR BOARD IS YOU WOULD HAVE A DECISION, WHETHER YOU COULD ACCEPT IT OR NOT WITHIN 30 DAYS.

>> YES, SIR. >> WE'VE ALREADY CONTACTED LEGAL AND THEY'RE ALREADY LOOKING INTO IT FOR GIFT ACCEPTANCE.

IF THIS FALLS WITHIN IT, IF THE RISK, EXPOSURE IS TOO GREAT, IF WE CAN MAKE THIS PLAN HAPPEN. WE ALREADY HAVE OTHER DEVELOPERS WHO ARE PREPARED TO SPEND MORE TO DO IT AT THE HISTORIC LEVEL WHEREBY THEY COULD BECOME ELIGIBLE AGAIN FOR TAX CREDITS FROM BOTH THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL, BUT AGAIN THAT REQUIRES A GREAT DEAL OF RESTORATION WHETHER THEY'RE TRYING TO SAVE 30% OF THE MATERIALS OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING IN ITS RECONSTRUCTION. THE ASBESTOS PART OF IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE LEEWAY, IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER 1990 AND 1995 RESCISSIONS OF EPA.

YOU CAN'T AVOID THE ASBESTOS ISSUE.

BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY ARE GIVING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF THAT SKIN, BUT UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN WITH THAT UTILITY SINCE 2006 WE KNOW NOW WATER INTRUSIONS AND

[00:40:03]

OTHER PROBLEMS HAVE CAUSE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS MOST LIKELY GREATER THAN 70% MIGHT BE LOST. WE JUST HAVE TO EVALUATE IF IT WILL REMAIN ELIGIBLE FOR TAX CREDITS BECAUSE DEVELOPERS ARE STILL INTERESTED BUT THEY NEED TO KNOW THEY HAVE THOSE ADDITIONAL MONIES AVAILABLE TO THEM TO RECOUP THE COST BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION AND RISK INVOLVED, DEVELOPERS WANT TO KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET A RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PREPARE THOSE PACKAGES FOR THOSE PEOPLE SO WE CAN PASS IT ON TO THE RIGHT HANDS.

>> DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE INSURED.

>> IT WAS A BURNT OUT BUILDING IN 2006, I BELIEVE THEY TOOK POSSESSION OF IT AND WERE ABLE TO SECURE THE PROPERTY AND AT THAT TIME IT DID NOT HAVE A CONDEMNATION BUT THEY WANTED TO ENSURE THEY MADE IT POSSIBLE WE COULD RENOVATE IT TO A PLACE WHERE SOMEONE ELSE COULD TAKE POSSESSION AND DUTIFUL RESTORATION. THAT'S AN OLD TOWN WEST.

>> ONE FURTHER QUESTION, IS THE LAND VALUE INCLUDED IN YOUR

70 - 30 FORMULA. >> IT IS NOT.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> AS FAR AS THE 7030 GOES, HAS ANYBODY PUT A FIGURE TO JUST LEAVING THE NORTH FAçADE, HOW IS THAT GOING TO CALCULATE AND WHAT

WILL REMAIN? >> I'M THINKING THE SAME LINES OF YOU. BECAUSE IT'S RECTANGULAR, THE FAçADE, 30 SOME ODD FEET MAKES UP WITH THE TERM POST- AROUND 30 - 31% OF THE FAçADE BUT THE RULING FOR TAX CREDIT IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 20, THEY PREFER 30% OF THE VOLUME OF MATERIALS THAT WERE ORIGINAL TO THE BILL OR AT LEAST ORIGINAL TO THE ADDITION OR AMENDMENT TO IT THAT'S GREATER THAN 50 YEARS O OLD, THAT THAT IN ITSELF IS HISTORIC.

HINGES, SETTINGS, CASINGS, ANY STRUCTURAL WOOD THAT MIGHT'VE BEEN INVOLVED. IF THOSE ARE INCLUDED AND PRESERVED THERE'S A PROCESS TO THAT THE NET CAN BE INCLUDED IN THAT CONSIDERATION. IT'S VERY INVOLVED BUT IT'S INTENT IS THAT WHEN RESTORATIONS, RENOVATIONS ARE DONE BUT THEY'RE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR STANDARDS AND THEY USE THE FEDERAL STANDARDS FOR THE STATE AS WELL AS THE FEDERAL MONIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> NO.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE TYPE STEPPED FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME.

SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 17009 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.

OR EMOTION. YOU HAVE THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU. >> IF I MAY TOUCH ON SOMETHING THAT MR. BLACK COMMENTED ON, AND IF I'M INCORRECT ON THIS, HE DID MENTION ABOUT OBTAINING INSURANCE BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT THE CONDEMNATION WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED.

WE TYPICALLY DON'T REMOVE PROPERTY FROM CONDEMNATION UNTIL IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP TO CODE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY OF ASSURING THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. ONCE IT'S BROUGHT UP TO CODE AND ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN PASSED THEY RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND THEN THAT TAG IS REMOVED.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HELP SAVE THIS IF POSSIBLE.

WE ARE ALSO CHARGED WITH THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND THIS CASE IS CERTAINLY IS NOT A VERY GOOD CASE FOR REHABILITATION AT ALL, BUT TO ME IT MIGHT BE WORTH 30 DAYS TABLE TO GIVE THE HISTORICAL OR PRESERVATION LEAGUE A CHANCE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS.

BEFORE WE ORDER DEMOLITION. THAT'S MY OPINION.

>> AS FAR AS FURTHERING TO DISCUSSION, I'M ENTHUSED WITH

[00:45:01]

THE INTEREST THAT WE SEE IN THIS AND ANYTHING THAT STILL CAN SALVAGE OR SAVE ANY PIECE OF OUR ABILENE HISTORY, I ALSO THINK A LITTLE MORE TIME TO SEE THE ANSWER TO THIS PURSUIT IS WELL INVESTED. I DON'T WANT TO BE KNOWN AS THE BOARD THAT ENDED IT SO AGAIN PART OF DISCUSSION IN WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD FROM HER PREVIOUS, WHEN I MENTIONED MAYBE WE TABLE IT.

THIS MAY BE A SIMPLE TABLING BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW, THEY'RE TRYING DIFFERENT THINGS SO DISCUSSION TO OUR BOARD MAYBE THIS SIMPLY COULD BE TABLED I WILL JUST LET THEIR INTEREST IN PURSUIT RUN ITS COURSE. THEY DEFINITELY HAVE THEIR OWN

TIMELINE. >> MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY I KNOW WHAT WERE SUPPOSED TO DO ON REMOVING SOMETHING FROM BEING DEMOLISHED, IS THERE ANY PROBLEM OF US WAVING THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR DEAL? ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DONE ACCORDING TO OUR GUID GUIDELINES.

>> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I AM NOT SURE IF THAT PRACTICE IS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE OR JUST PRACTICE OPPOSED TO A REQUIREMENT MR. LITTLEJOHN MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT BETTER

THAN I CAN. >> WILL I FEEL LIKE THE REST IS, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US RETAIN THAT IF ANY WAY POSSIBLE AND I SURE WOULD GO ALONG WITH WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS.

>> AGAIN, TO FURTHER OUR DISCUSSION, TABLING VERSUS PUTTING SOME STIPULATION INTO THIS AT THIS POINT, THEY DO NEED TO CONSIDER THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PROPERTY AS IT SITS, AND I THINK WE CERTAINLY COULD DO SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS CONSTRUCTION OF SOME TYPE TO ENVELOPE THIS PROPERTY THAT MAY EVEN TAKE IN THAT FAçADE.

I DON'T KNOW THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERATION TO DO THAT BUT IF WE CAN'T LIFT THE CONDEMNATION BY OUR GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS, I THINK WE COULD AT LEAST SHOW OUR DUE DILIGENCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY AND SAINTLINESS OF IT IN A LARGER ENVELOPE JUST TO SATISFY SOME OF THAT AND INSTEAD OF, EVEN IF YOU WENT AND STARTED THIS $85000 TO TEAR DOWN A BUNCH OF IT, YOU WILL GET IT PROTECTED THAT WAY. SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GET THAT ENVELOPE AROUND IT. I DROVE BY THIS THING THIS WEEK AND STILL RECOGNIZED THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND US HAS GOT A LOT OF WAYS TO GO, BUT TO SEE THE INTEREST IN SAVING THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY COULD START SOMETHING TO CONTINUE ADDRESSING THE AREA. THERE'S A LOT OF OLD BUSINESSES.

AGAIN, I LOOK AT THINGS ENVIRONMENTALLY OR BY NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.

[00:50:02]

IF THIS IS A GOOD EFFORT TO START, BUT WE DO NEED TO BE SENSITIVE, HOW CAN WE, THIS THING HAS BEEN SITTING THERE HOW MANY YEARS? BUT GO AHEAD AND PUT AN ACTIVITY AROUND IT THAT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE IT'S TRYING TO BE SAVED, THAT'S NOTHING BUT START TO SWEETEN THE POT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, THAT SOME OF MY DISCUSSION AND IF WE CAN'T GET IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION, WE STILL SHOULD GET IT FENCED ENVELOPE, AND I'M NOT TALKING CHAIN-LINK, YOU NEED SOMETHING SOLID.

WHETHER WE CHOOSE TO TABLE IT FOR 30 DAYS, IT WILL GIVE THEM TIME TO GET THEM ON THE FENCE OR OFF THE FENCE.

THAT MAY BE AWAY TO LET THIS THING MEET ITS RESOLVE.

>> I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

IT HAS TO BE ON THE PROPER PROPERTY LINE OR IN THE ALLEY EASEMENT AND THE DETERIORATION IN THAT WALL IS PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD ENVELOPE THAT UNLESS THEY ATTACH THE ENVELOPE TO THE BUILDING AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WOULD BE AN ANSWER, BUT THE LEVEL OF DETERIORATION IN THE BUILDING IS A CONCERN TO ME BECAUSE I THINK IF IT REALLY STARTS CRUMBLING, ESPECIALLY INTO THE ALLEY, IT'S GOING TO CRUMBLE INTO THE ALLEY, AND AT THAT POINT WERE NOT GOING TO HAVE MANY OPTIONS LEFT FOR US.

SO, I WOULD HOPE THEY WOULD MOVE THIS ALONG AS FAST AS POSSIBLE AND WITHIN 30 DAYS THEY WOULD KNOW WHETHER THEY COULD ACCEPT IT OR NOT AND WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, ONE OF MY ORIGINAL CONCERNS WAS DURING THE PREVIOUS MEETING WE HAVE A LOT OF VERBAL REPORTS AND NOTHING IN WRITING.

I MADE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE GET COMMENDATIONS AND THE PLAN OF ACTION IN WRITING AND REQUIRE THAT, BUT YET TODAY WE STILL HAVE VERBAL REPORTS THAT ARE STILL DEPENDENT ON THE NUMBER OF MEETINGS. WERE STILL IN THE SAME POSITION WE WERE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. THAT IS, BASICALLY NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE HAVE ALL THE THINGS THAT HAVE POTENTIALLY COULD OCCUR. I THINK I REMEMBER STATING TO THE GROUP THAT THE TAX CREDIT WAS GOING TO BE A HUGE ISSUE AND THAT WAS UNREALISTIC. IT CERTAINLY WAS.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN, HOWEVER, I DO SHARE EVERYONE'S LOVE AND APPRECIATION FOR HISTORY. I GET GREW UP ON HIGHWAY 66.

I KNOW ABOUT ROAD I RAISE AND FREQUENTING BUSINESSES FROM CHICAGO TO L.A. OVER THE YEARS JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE.

I SHARE THE LOVE OF THAT, BUT I WOULD BE TOTALLY OPPOSED TO TAKING DOWN THE DEMOLITION RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF YEARS THIS HAS BEEN OUT THERE THAT BASICALLY WOULD NOT SEEN ANY ACTION. TO MINE MIND THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE SEEN ACTION IS BECAUSE WE HAVE HELD MR. RANKIN TO A SPECIFIC TIMELINE OF SOMETHING NEEDING TO OCCUR AND WE NEEDED TO SEE THINGS HAPPEN. I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO A 30 DAY OPTION TO SEE IF THESE PLANS CAN COME THROUGH, BUT I WOULD PERSONALLY TOTALLY BE OPPOSED TO THE IDEA OF TAKING AWAY THE

DEMOLITION. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

MOTION? >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION.

CAN I MAKE A MOTION? >> YES.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS FOR 30 DAYS OR UNTIL

[00:55:03]

THE NEXT MEETING.

>> 30 DAYS. >> I SECOND THE MOTION.

>> A MOTION BY MR. BEARD, SECOND BY MR. ALLRED THAT WE TABLE THIS FOR 30 DAYS IN ORDER TO GIVE THE PRESERVATION LEAGUE A CHANCE.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL.

GOOD LUCK. I HOPE IT WORKS.

NEXT CASE PLEASE. >> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

[3. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 19-01842: 501 Peach St. (11— 12 159 OT ABILENE). Owner: Knapp, Robert B & Mary E % Blanca Cortez]

THE CHECKLIST FOR RECORD SEARCH, COUNTY RECORDS SHOW WARRANTY DEED MATT ROBERT B AND MARY E TO BE THE OWNER.

SECRETARY OF STATE, NO RECORDS FOR THIS NAME FOUND.

TAX RECORDS OF THE MISSED POLITY NOT APPLICABLE.

IT HAS BEEN INACTIVE SINCE SEPTEMBER 2005.

THE SEARCH REVEALS NAP MARY E TO BE THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE MAIN STRUCTURE. THERE ARE TWO STRUCTURES ON THIS PROPERTY. THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS THE MAIN AND THE SECONDARY IS ON THE RIGHT.

BOTH STRUCTURES DID HAVE TO BE SECURED BY THE CITY ON JAN JANUARY 3020, 2020. THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION I WILL SPECIFY THE DATES OF THE PHOTOS TAKEN TO SHOW FURTHER SHOW THE LACK OF IMPROVEMENT AND PROGRESS ON THE STRUCTURE.

THE MAIN STRUCTURE ON THE LEFT WAS OCTOBER 2019 AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT IS JANUARY 2020. YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE HOLES IN THE ROOF AND THEY REMAIN THE SAME, SAME TIMELINES, INADEQUATE PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL IN THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND THIS IS STILL IN THE MAIN STRUCTURE, SOME UNFINISHED INTERIOR WORK AND STRUCTURAL ISSUES WITH THE ROOF AND CEI CEILING. MOLD AND CRUMBLING THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE CEILINGS OF THE TWO STRUCTURES AND SOME ELECTRICAL ISSUES AS WELL. THIS PHOTO OF THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE WAS TAKEN APRIL 2019 AND THE RIGHT WAS JANUARY 2020 AND THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE.

YOU SEE THERE'S STILL NO ELECTRICAL METER.

THERE CONTINUES TO BE INADEQUATE ELECTRICAL AND CEILING ROTTING AND CRUMBLING THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE STRUCTURAL ISSUES TO THAT PART. THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE WITH MORE STRUCTURAL ISSUES, YOU CAN SEE ANOTHER PART WHERE THERE'S A ROOF CAVING IN AND MORE ELECTRICAL ISSUES.

WE HAVE PLUMBING ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE. TIMELINE OF EVENTS, MAY 10, 2019 THE INITIAL NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION WAS SENT AND PLAN OF ACTION AND UTILITY SHUT OFF LETTERS WERE SENT AS WELL.

JOEL JULY 9, 2019 MS. CORTEZ CAME IN AND ASKED ABOUT THE PROPERTY BUT DID NOT EXPRESS ANY INTENTION WITH THE PROPERTY.

OCTOBER 7TH 2019 TAYLOR COUNTY LEGAL ASSISTANCE AT THIS PROPERTY WAS BEHIND IN TAXES FROM 2016 AND 2017 AND WAS PAID TO THE PROPERTY WAS REMOVED FROM TAX SALE.

IT IS NOW BEHIND IN TAX AGAIN AND THEY MAY FILE A TAX SALE AGAIN. OCTOBER 8, 2019, WE SENT NOTICE NOVEMBER 6, 2019 MEETING, OCTOBER 17, 2019 AT THAT TIME THERE WAS NO PLAN OF ACTION OR PERMITS REQUESTED.

OCTOBER 28, 2019 MISS CORTEZ ARRIVED WITH PERMITS.

SHE WAS INFORMED SHE CANNOT PULL PERMITS UNLESS SHE WAS THE LEGAL OWNER. SHE STATED SHE WOULD GO BACK AND WORK ON GETTING THE WARRANTY DEED.

SHE ALSO STATED SHE WOULD ATTEND THE MEETING IN NOVEMBER.

NOVEMBER 6, 2019 MEETING, THE BOARD ORDERED DIRTY 60.

[01:00:05]

LETTERS WERE SENT TO HER AND SHE WAS ALSO PRESENT AT THE MEETING. GENERAL 142020, NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN POLLED, NO PLAN OF ACTION HAD BEEN SUBMITTED AND NO PROOF OF OWNERSHIP HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

WE SENT NOTICE OF THE FEBRUARY 5 MEETING.

JANUARY 30, 2020 PROPERTY HAD TO BE SECURED BY THE CITY.

FEBRUARY 4, 2020 SHE CAME IN AND SUBMITTED AN INCOMPLETE PLAN OF ACTION. SHE STATED SHE WANTED TO TURN SOMETHING IN BUT JUST ONE MORE TIME.

I TOLD HER SHE WOULD NEED TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING AT THE MEETING. SHE STATED SHE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE AT THE MEETING AND SHE JUST WANTED TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF ACTION SO SHE COULD PULL PERMITS.

I ASKED IF SHE HAD EVER OBTAIN PROOF OF OWNERSHIP AND SHE SAID SHE LEFT THE DEED AT HOME. SHE SAID SHE HAD A BILL OF SALE AND SHE COULD E-MAIL ME THE DEED LATER AND I ASKED HER IF SHE EVER FILED THE DEED AT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE AND SHE STATED SHE HAD NOT. NOT FILE THE DEED AT THE COUNTY OWNERSHIP WOULD NOT BE VALID. SHE ASKED IF SHE COULD E-MAIL ME THE BILL OF SALE.

SHE ASKED IF SHE FILED A BILL OF SALE OF THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE WOULD IT VALIDATE HER OWNERSHIP.

I TOLD HER SHE WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE CLERK'S.

FEBRUARY 4, 2020, I CALLED MISS CORTEZ LATER THE DAY TO INFORM HER THAT THE MEETING WAS GOING TO BE CANCELED DUE TO INCLEMNT WEATHER. ON FEBRUARY 12, 2020 THE NOTICE WAS MAILED AND POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE.

FURTHER UPDATE AS OF TODAY, MARCH 4, 2020 THERE IS STILL NO PROOF OF OWNERSHIP PROVIDED, NO DEEDS FILED AT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE THEREFORE NO PERMITS HAVE BEEN POLLED.

OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD AND REPAIR WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.

INADEQUATE SAND DICTATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, ELECTRICAL WIRING, FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION.

THEY FURTHER RECOMMEND TO ORDER THE OWNER'S ORDER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL IT TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY

DEMOLISH. >> ANY QUESTIONS.

>> DO WE KNOW WHO THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY IS?

>> ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS IT IS MR. AND MISSUS KNAPP.

MS. CORTEZ HAS STATED REPEATEDLY THAT SHE IS THE OWNER BUT SHE HAS YET TO PROVIDE VALID PROOF OF THAT.

SHE DID SEND ME A COPY OF THE BILL OF SALE WHERE SHE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, I BELIEVE BAKKEN 2015, BUT THERE IS NO RECORD OF THAT OF THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.

SO LEGALLY THE OWNER STILL SHOWED TO BE MR. AND MISSUS

KNAPP. >> SO IF THE OWNER IS INFORMED THAT GOT TO DEMOLISH THEM IT'S GOING TO BE GOING TO THE NAPS,

IS THAT RIGHT. >> YES.

ALL THE PAPERWORK HAS BEEN GOING TO THE ADDRESS WE HAVE ON FILE WHICH IS THE INFORMATION WE OBTAINED FROM TAYLOR TAYLOR CAD AND IT SHOWS IT'S IN CARE OF MS. CORTEZ.

>> HAVE YOU EVER SPOKEN TO THE NAPS.

>> MOSER. WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTACT

THEM. >> ANY OTHER QUESTION?

>> I SEE MAIN STRUCTURE, SECONDARY STRUCTURE AND, IN TERMS OF PHOTOS AND PICTURES, I DON'T GET THE INTERIOR DETAIL AS MUCH, I DO HAVE SOME AM I DO SEE WE SAW INTERIOR PHOTOS, AND THAT'S THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE SO I'M TALKING ABOUT IF ONE STRUCTURE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER ONE, SECONDARY IS DEFINITELY DOESN'T LOOK WORTHY OF SAVING.

>> THIS IS THE MAIN STRUCTURE RIGHT HERE.

>> YES. I SEE SOME DRYWALL AND SOME ATTEMPTED SHAPE AND CHARACTER AND SOMEBODY'S ATTEMPT TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE SPACE. I DO SEE HOLES IN THE ROOF BUT THAT DOESN'T, AGAIN CONDEMNED THE STRUCTURE SO MUCH SO, MY QUESTION TO YOU, DO YOU FEEL LIKE BOTH STRUCTURES ARE IN THE

SAME CONDITION. >> YES, SIR.

[01:05:05]

IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CONSISTENCY, WE TRIED TO PRESENT MOST RECENT PHOTOS THAT WE HAVE.

WE DO HAVE OLDER PHOTOS AND I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE WORK, OR THE ATTEMPTED WORK YOU SEE DONE ON THE INTERIOR STRUCTURE WAS ALL DONE WITHOUT PERMITS BECAUSE THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANY PERMITS ON RECORD TO BE DONE TO THE

STRUCTURE. >> SO IF WE GO BACK AND LOOK THROUGH SOME OLDER PHOTOS IF WE DID HAVE PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY IT WAS IN WORSE CONDITION.

>> SO ALL THE WORK THAT WAS DONE WAS DONE WITHOUT PERMITS.

>> YES, SIR. THERE'S BEEN NO PERMITS ON

RECORD. >> THE NEW WINDOWS WERE DONE

WITHOUT PERMITS. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> MS. CORTEZ HAS BEEN BEFORE US ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS.

SHE KNOWS HOW THE PROCEDURE, SHE KNOWS WHAT IS EXPECTED OF HER.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS CASE 190-1842, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.

I GUESS I WILL MAKE THE MOTION. WE FOLLOW THE STATES RECOMMENDATION AND DECLARE IT'S A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND REPAIR

WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. >> I SECOND THE MOTION.

>> MOTION AND SECOND PERIOD THE PROPERTY WILL BE DECLARED A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

ROLL CALL. >> DOCTOR PARIS.

MR. ALREADY. MS. YIELDING.

I FOLLOW-UP THAT MOTION WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ORDER THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT IN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

MOTION CARRIES. >> NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3D CASE

[4. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 19-004517: 1050 Chestnut St. (NORTHINGTON, BLOCK A, LOT S40 E180, Owner: Smith, Alton]

19004517 ADDRESS AT 1050 CHESTNUT STREET.

CHECKLIST FOR RECORD SEARCH OF THIS PROPERTY, COUNTY RECORD SHOWS ALTON SMITH TO BE THE OWNER.

TAYLOR CAD SHOWS ALTON SMITH. SECRETARY OF STATE NO RECORDS WITH HIS NAME FOUND. TAX RECORDS AND MUNICIPALITY NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS AND MUNICIPALITY SHOULD BE INACTIVE SINCE SEPTEMBER 18, 2019.

THE SEARCH REVEALS ALTON SMITH TO BE THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.

THIS IS THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS A TWO-STORY QUADRO PLEX APARTMENT COMPLEX.

THIS IS THE OUTER SOUTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.

AGAIN, THE PHOTOS THAT YOU SEE, THE INITIAL ONES ARE THE ONES ON THE LEFT FROM NOVEMBER 2019 AND THE ONES ON THE RIGHT ARE FROM JANUARY 2020. THIS WAS A STRUCTURE WHERE YOU

[01:10:06]

CAN SEE ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE WAS SOME FIRE DAMAGE.

THIS IS THE WEST SIDE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE.

THERE IS SOME EXTERIOR PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL ISSUES.

HERE ARE SOME STRUCTURAL ISSUES IN THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE UNDERNEATH. NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, THIS IS THE NORTH INTERIOR AND THIS IS THE FIRE DAMAGE SUSTAINED AND ON THE RIGHT, AS YOU CAN SEE IS SOME CLEANUP AND IMPROVEMENTS DONE. THIS IS THE SOUTH, NORTH, I'M SORRY, NORTH INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND MORE FIRE DAMAGE THAT WAS SUSTAINED. AGAIN IN THE NORTH INTERIOR WE HAVE SOME STRUCTURAL ISSUES CAUSED BY ALL THE FIRE DAMAGE.

HERE ARE SOME ELECTRICAL ISSUES, OLD WIRING THAT WAS ALL BURNED AND CHARRED OUT. THIS IS THE NORTH INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE WITH INADEQUATE PLUMBING.

THIS IS SOUTH.

THERE WAS REWIRING DONE THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE AS I SEE THE PHOTOS ON THE LEFT IN SEPTEMBER AND THE PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT IN JANUARY 2020, THERE HAS BEEN SOME NEW WIRING INSTALLED.

I APOLOGIZE. THE SOUTH SIDE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE THERE ARE SOME ELECTRICAL ISSUES THAT STILL REMAIN DESPITE THE WIRING. THERE'S MORE INTERIOR STRUCTURAL ISSUES AND FIRE DAMAGE AND THIS IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. THERE SOME PLUMBING AND FIRE DAMAGE THROUGHOUT THE SOUTH SIDE INTERIOR THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS, BEGINNING SEPTEMBER 16, 2019, THE INITIAL NOTICE OF CONDEMNATION, 3060 PLAN OF ACTION AND UTILITY SHUT OFF LETTERS WERE SENT. THE OWNER WAS CALLED, THE OWNER CALLED AND STATED HE WOULD SECURE THE BUILDING AND PULL PERMITS. SEPTEMBER 27, 2019 THE OWNER SUBMITTED AN INCOMPLETE PLAN OF ACTION WITHOUT DETAILS IMPROVEMENTS WERE DENIED. OCTOBER 16, 2019 THE OWNER SUBMITTED ANOTHER INCOMPLETE PLAN OF ACTION WITHOUT DETAILS AND PERMITS WERE AGAIN DENIED. THE OWNER WAS IT INSTRUCTED TO HIRE PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTOR AND PROVIDE ESTIMATES.

THE OWNER REQUESTED A NEW PLAN OF ACTION WAS ASKED AGAIN BY BUILDING OFFICIAL TO HIRE A LICENSED CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ESTIMATES. NOVEMBER 14, 2019, THE OWNER STARTED REPAIRS WITHOUT PERMITS AND STOP WORK ORDER HAD TO BE POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE. NOVEMBER 15, 2019, MR. SMITH TRIED TO PULL PLUMBING PERMITS. WE EXPLAINED TO HIM A DETAILED PLAN OF ACTION NEEDED TO BE SUBMITTED IN ORDER TO PULL PERMITS. GAVE HIM ANOTHER PLAN OF ACTION AS HE STATED HE DID NOT HAVE THE LAST ONE WE GAVE HIM.

HE CAME IN LATER, SUBMITTED A PLAN OF ACTION WITH DETAILED ESTIMATES AND IT WAS APPROVED. NOVEMBER 18, 2019 PERMITS WERE PULLED FOR THE STRUCTURE. DECEMBER 4, 2019, 3060 WAS ORDERED, DECEMBER 5, 2019 IT WAS SIGNED AND FILED IN DECEMBER 6 THE BOB'S DECISION LETTERS WERE SENT.

JANUARY 13, 2020 UPDATED PHOTOS WERE TAKEN, NO ROOFING INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED OR SCHEDULED.

I MET WITH AN INDIVIDUAL WHO PLAN TO BE ATTE TENNANT OF MR. SMITH AND HE EXPLAINED HE WAS DOING ALL THE REWIRING WITHIN THE STRUCTURE. JANUARY 14, 2020 I MADE A PHONE CALL WITH THE ELECTRICIAN, THE CONTRACTED ELECTRICIAN TO CONFIRM THAT HE WAS DOING THE WORK ON THE STRUCTURE.

HE STATED HE WAS AND THAT HE INFORMED MR. SMITH THAT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE NEEDED TO BE COMPLETELY REWIRED.

THE CONTRACTOR ALSO STATED HE WOULD SPEAK TO MR. SMITH AGAIN AND INFORM HIM HE NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE WORK SO INSPECTION CAN BE COMPLETED. I ALSO ATTEMPTED TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE PLUMBER CONTRACTOR BUT THERE WAS NO ANSWER.

JANUARY 4, 2020 THERE WAS NO ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS COMPLETED OR SCHEDULED. FEBRUARY 18, 2020 BOB'S NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.

FEBRUARY 19, 2020 THE BOB'S NOTICE WAS MAILED TO THE OWNER.

[01:15:02]

AND MOST CURRENT UPDATES, AS OF FEBRUARY 25, 2020 THE PLUMBING, ROUGH IN INSPECTION WAS PASSED, AND AS OF MARCH 4, 2020 NO OTHER INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED OR ATTEMPTED TO TRY TO PASS.

THE ELECTRICAL ROUGH IN STILL HAS NOT PASSED.

THE STAFF COMMENDATION IS TO FIND A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE.

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER EIGHT, SECTION EIGHT -- 554 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST. INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAS HAZARD, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION, AND THE STAFF FURTHER ORDERS THE OWNERS ORDER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEALED THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY

DEMOLISH. >> SO THEY DID SUBMIT PLAN OF ACTION IN THE TIMELINE AS THE BOARD HAD ORDERED AT THE LAST

MEETING. >> YES THE PLAN OF ACTION WAS ACTUALLY SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN NOVEMBER AND THE BOB'S MEETING WAS IN DECEMBER AND THAT'S WHEN THE 30 - 60 WAS ORDERED. SO.

ONLY ROUGH IN EXTENSION INSPECTION COMPLETED WAS THE

PLUMBING. >> SO BASICALLY THEY HAVE NOT

MET THE 30 - 60 ORDER. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE INTENTION OR COMMUNICATIONS ARE GOING TO BE ATTEMPTED OR KEPT UP? OR ARE THEY JUST DRAGGING THIS OUT.

>> AS FAR AS THE ENHANCEMENT DIVISION GOES, WE ARE MAKING EFFORTS TO STAY IN CONTACT WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. AT THIS TIME, WE DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER UPDATE PHOTOS OF THE INSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE ELECTRICAL ROUGH IN HAS NOT BEEN PASSED THAT IS ALSO DELAYING THE PROCESS OF DOING THE INSTALLATION AND FURTHER STRUCTURAL WORK.

WE CAN ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO CONTACT HIM TO SEE IF HE WILL LET US GET SOME UPDATES ON THE INSIDE HOWEVER GIVEN THE TIMELINE AND HIM NOT MEETING THE INITIAL BOARD ORDER, ALL I CAN SAY IS AGAIN IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY, THIS IS WHY THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A DEMOLITION ON THE PROPERTY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE JANUARY 13, 2020. IT INDICATES THAT SOMEONE MET WITH AN INDIVIDUAL WHO CLAIM TO BE A TENNANT OF MR. SMITH AND HE STATED HE WAS DOING ALL THE REWIRING INSIDE THE STRUCTURE.

IS THAT STRUCTURE LIVABLE IN ANY UNIT?

>> AT THIS TIME, NO AND AS PREVIOUSLY STATED IN THE OTHER CASE, WE DO NOT ALLOW, TYPICALLY WHEN A PROPERTY IS CONDEMNED, IT IS NOT FIT FOR HABITATION SO NOBODY SHOULD BE LIVING IN THE STRUCTURE. BY STATING HE WAS IN TENNANT, HE ACTUALLY LIVES ON THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO THAT ONE.

>> AND GIVE. >> SO MR. SMITH KNOWS WHAT REQUIREMENTS ARE BECAUSE HE HAS SEVERAL PROPERTIES AND HE'S BEEN HERE BEFORE SEVERAL TIMES. HE KNOWS WHAT WE REQUIRE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 19004517 AND ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU GIVE IS SUBJECT TO THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> YES, SIR.

>> MY NAME IS ALICIA SMITH I LIVE ON WOODWAY CIRCLE PARADIGM ALTON SMITH'S WIFE. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF MISINFORMATION, INCORRECT INFORMATION.

WE HIRED BENNY ORTEGA, HE'S DOING ALL THE WIRING.

WE DON'T HAVE A TENNANT THAT IS PULLING THE DEAL.

[01:20:01]

I TALKED MY HUSBAND WHEN HE MET WITH BENNY ORTEGA AND BENNY ORTEGA WAS WORKING ON IT LAST WEEK.

THE ROUGH IN INSPECTION FOR THE PLUMBING HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETE. I WILL SAY THIS IS SOME OF THE PROPERTY THAT HE OWNS, I HAVE HATED JUST BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF IT SO MUCH SO THAT I USUALLY DO THE LEASING FOR OUR PROPERTIES, HE DOES MORE THE MANAGEMENT AND I DO MORE OF THE MARKETING, LEASING, STUFF LIKE FINDING DEALS AND STUFF LIKE THAT AND PAPERWORK WHERE THE ACTUAL BUILD STUFF AND MAINTENANCE SIDE IS HIS DEPARTMENT, AND I'VE TOLD HIM FOR A LONG TIME, I, WE OWN THAT ENTIRE CITY BLOCK.

EITHER WANT TO FLIP IT AND TEAR DOWN THIS OR RENOVATE IT BUT I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY IT WORKS SO AS FAR AS MY OPINION, THE FIRES A BLESSING BECAUSE IT PUTS IT WHERE WE HAVE TO GO IN THERE, GOT IT AND REDO IT. THE FOUNDATIONS GOOD, THE ROOF IS GOOD, THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE, IT'S NOT, WE HAVE THE MONEY IN THE BANK TO REPAIR IT, WE JUST SOLD TWO APARTMENT COMPLEXES SO WE HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY TO PUT INTO THE PLACE.

I CAN'T SCHEDULED BENNY ORTEGA. HE AGREED TO DO THE WORK.

WE PAID HIM TO DO THE WORK. NOW HE TOLD US TO BE A LITTLE BIT FLEXIBLE BECAUSE HE'S GOT SEVERAL HOUSES HE IS DOING RIGHT NOW. THAT'S NOT MY FAULT OR MY HUSBAND'S FAULT, BUT I WENT TO LOWE'S AND DID A QS P AND I BOUGHT BRAND-NEW VANITIES, SHOWERS, TOILETS, I'D LIKE TO RENT THEM FOR ABOUT 700 A MONTH.

UNIT.

Y'ALL CAN SEE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND WHAT WE'VE DONE, I PAINTED LAST WEEK SO I CAN GIVE YOU UPDATED PICTURES.

THIS IS THE FLOOR THAT'S PREPPING, THIS IS THAT NOW AND THAT'S NOT THE FINISHED PRODUCT.

YOU CAN GO OUT TO 209 AMARILLO, THAT WAS WHEN WE HAD BOUGHT THAT WAS CONDEMNED AND WE REMODELED AND RE, I DON'T LIKE TO TAKE THINGS AND JUST PUT THEM UP, I LIKE TO MAKE THEM REALLY NICE WHEN WE DO IT IT'S JUST TRYING TO GET ALTON TO THAT POINT AND RIGHT NOW HE'S AT THAT POINT. WE PUT IN ALL NEW WINDOWS EXCEPT ON ONE SIDE WHICH HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED WITH HIM WE WILL DO HE JUST HADN'T DONE IT YET BECAUSE HE WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THIS. I THINK WE NEED ANOTHER HUNDRED 20 DAYS BECAUSE I CAN'T TELL YOU WHEN THE ELECTRICAL GUY IS GOING TO GET IN THERE TO FINISH IT OUT.

I CAN TELL YOU 30 DAYS BUT THAT MIGHT BE A LIE.

REALISTICALLY HUNDRED 20 DAYS AND I THINK WITH IT JUST BEING COME DOWN TO AT THE END PART OF 2019 THAT'S MORE THAN REASONABLE. LIKE I SAID, THE ROOFLINE IS GOOD, THERE'S NO LEAKS, THERE'S NO BLACK MOLD.

THERE'S NO MOLD. IT'S UGLY, THE TENNANT THAT LIVED THERE SET IT ON FIRE. IT WAS NOT ANY FAULTY WIRING, IT WAS NOT ANYTHING LIKE THAT. HE PUT THE MATTRESS ON FIRE.

IT WILL HAVE BRAND-NEW WIRING AND PLUMBING.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT QUESTIONS Y'ALL HAVE.

>> DID YOU OWN THE PROPERTY WHEN IT CAUGHT ON FIRE.

>> YES WE DID. AT THAT POINT, I DON'T TYPI TYPICALLY, I DON'T LEASE THOSE. SE BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE HIM I DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE PUTTING ANYBODY IN THAT TYPE OF LIFESTYLE AND THAT'S WHAT MOST OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE THAT'S LIKE THAT, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO OFFLOAD AND BY BETTER

PROPERTY. >> HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED.

>> THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY PROBABLY OWNED IT SINCE THE '90S. THE WHOLE BLOCK.

IT WAS BOUGHT AT THE SAME TIME. >> SO GOT CONDEMNED AFTER THE

FIRE. >> YES.

THE FIRE WAS THE REASON I GOT CONDEMNED WHICH, THAT'S A BLESSING TO ME BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO GO IN THERE AND DO IT AND I GAVE ALTON THE MOTIVATION TO GET IT DONE AND IT'S NOT VERY FAR FROM WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT ON SOUTH 11H AND CHESTNUT. THERE'S A SHOP THERE AND THE QUADRA PLEX RIGHT BY THE SHOP. I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT DON TOO.

THERE'S A LOT OF BUILDINGS IN ABILENE THAT JUST NEED MONEY PUT

INTO THEM. >> SO WHAT DO YOU THINK BECAUSE OF DELAY HAS BEEN. THE ELECTRICIAN.

>> ELECTRICIAN BECAUSE WE CAN'T PUT SHEET ROCK IN AND AT THIS POINT IT LOOKS REALLY UGLY BUT ONCE YOU GET SHEET ROCK GOING YOU KNOW IT GOES PRETTY FAST AFTER THAT.

WE CAN'T PUT UP SHE SHEET ROCK BECAUSE YOU TELL US TO TAKE IT DOWN SO YOU CAN SEE IT SO I'M AT A STANDSTILL UNTIL THE ELECTRICAL. HE TOLD US TO JUST BE PATIENT.

WE'VE ALREADY PAID HIM MONEY. >> I FEEL YOUR PAIN ON HOW CONTRACTORS SOMEHOW DELAY THINGS UP HOWEVER THERE ARE TIMELINES

[01:25:01]

THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWED THROUGH THE PLAN OF ACTION.

>> I UNDERSTAND. WHENEVER WE SOLD THE PROPERTIES, I TOOK OVER, I'M STILL MANAGING THEM AS WELL AS THREE KIDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR LIFE SO I DIDN'T GET THE PAPERWORK DONE AND HE'S NOT THE BEST AT PAPERWORK SO HE KEPT THINKING IT WAS DON AND I SAID YOU NEED TO DO THIS AND THIS AND HE WASN'T SEEING IT ON THE SAME PAGE SEE KEPT DENYING HIM AND FINALLY WE GOT IT FIGURED OUT. HE WAS TRYING.

I THINK IF YOU GIVE US ANOTHER 60 DAYS THAT'S POSSIBLY ENOUGH TO GET DONE. I WAS STRETCHING IT OUT WITH 120, THE ONLY DELAY IS THE ELECTRICAL.

BUT TO TEAR DOWN THIS BUILDING, I THINK THAT'S JUST CRAZY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MS. SMITH.

>> THANK YOU MS. SMITH. >> ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 19 -- 004517. I OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION

OR MOTION. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YES OR. SHE HAD A MORE CURRENT PICTURE.

WHAT IS THE MOST RECENT PICTURE WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US.

>> IT'S THE PHOTOS WE PRESENTED AS OF JANUARY 2020.

PAINTING DOESN'T REQUIRE PERMANENT SO IT'S NOT REALLY PERMIT BUT AS FAR AS ANY UPDATES INSIDE THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE, EVERYTHING THAT WAS PRESENTED TODAY AS OF

JANUARY 2020 IS WHAT WE HAVE. >> IT HAD NEW SHINGLED ROOF AND IT WAS PAINTED, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE LAST PICTURE YOU HAVE #.

>> THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT HERE.

THE OUTSIDE STRUCTURE SO BASED UPON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, IS IT JUST THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE NOT FOLLOWED THE 30 - 60 ORDER, IS THAT WHY YOU'RE RECOMMENDING WHAT YOU'VE GOT.

>> IT IS IN THE FACT THAT INITIALLY THERE WAS A 3060 SENT OUT IN SEPTEMBER WHEN IT WAS FIRST CONDEMNED.

PART OF THE PROBLEM OF THE DELAY HAS BEEN THE FACT THAT MR. SMITH WAS REFUSING TO HIRE CONTRACTORS UNTIL MR. LITTLEJOHN HAD TO EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS REQUIRED. HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO DO ALL THE REPAIRS HIMSELF BUT WE EXPLAINED BECAUSE IT WAS CONDEMNED PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTORS HAD TO BE HIRED AND EVERYTHING HAD TO

BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE. >> THE HOMEOWNER HAD TO WRITE.

A HOMEOWNER CAN ONLY WORK ON THEIR OWN HOMESTEAD NOT THE

PROPERTY THAT THEY LEASE OUT. >> AND AGAIN, BECAUSE ABOUT A STOP WORK ORDER HAD TO BE PLACED BECAUSE THE WINDOWS, THAT YOU SEE NOW WERE ALL INSTALLED WITHOUT PERMITS.

>> I THOUGHT HE HAD PULLED PERMIT.

>> THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER.

>> THAT WAS PRIOR TO HIM PULLING THE PERMIT.

>> YES OR BUT IT'S CURRENTLY PERMITTED.

>> YES AND THOSE EXPIRE AUG AUGUST 23, 2020.

AS FAR AS SCUM YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE ROOF, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE TO BE ANY REPAIRS DONE TO THE ROOF BECAUSE NO

ROOFING PERMIT HAS BEEN PULLED. >> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION AS

WELL. >> YES OR.

>> HOW MANY INDIVIDUALS PAY A CONTRACTOR FOR SERVICE BEFORE THEY CONTRACTOR PROVIDES THE SERVICE, IS THAT A PRACTICE HERE

IN ABILENE. >> WE REQUIRE ANY PROPERTY OWNERS OF CONDEMNED PROPERTY TO HIRE A LICENSE AND BLINDED

CONTRACTOR. >> TO HIRE THEM BUT DO THEY HAVE TO PAY THEM IN ADVANCE? OF PROVIDING THIS SERVICE?

>> THAT DEPENDS ON THE CONTRACTOR.

I CAN'T SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF. IF THEY REQUIRE IT UPFRONT THEN YES BUT IF THEY HAVE THE FUNDS SET ASIDE TO INITIATE A PROJECT AND THEY JUST GO INITIATED AND SEND THE PROPERTY OWNER THE

BILL. >> I'M JUST NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT PRACTICE AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN TAUGHT NOT TO DO THAT.

>> THAT IS NOT A GOOD BUSINESS MODEL TO PAY A CONTRACTOR IN

[01:30:02]

ADVANCE. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. IS THERE MOTION.

>> THEY STATED THEY PASSED THE PLUMBING INSPECTION AND THERE OBVIOUSLY HAVING SOME TROUBLE COORDINATING THEIR ELECTRICIAN WHICH THE OPTION ON THAT WOULD BE FIND ANOTHER CONTRACTOR TO STAY IN THE TIMELINE. SHE'S REQUESTED EITHER 60 OR HUNDRED 20 MORE DAYS TO TRY TO COMPLETE THIS.

THEY'VE ON THIS PROPERTY SINCE THE '90S, THERE HAS BEEN SOME THINGS MOVE FORWARD. I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN GO WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO TODAY.

IF WE DID, I'M TALKING FOR MYSELF, EXTEND ANOTHER 60 DAYS, WE WOULD EXPECT THAT TO BE COMPLIED WITH OR WE'D BE RIGHT BACK HERE LOOKING AT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AGAIN AND YOU'VE INVESTED MORE FUNDS INTO IT WHICH I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN TO Y'ALL. THAT'S MY COMMENTS.

I'M STILL OPEN FOR OPEN DISCUSSION.

>> SEWS THAT A MOTION. >> NO, I HAVE NOT MADE A MOTION. DISCUSSION.

>> 'S AS FAR AS FURTHER DISCUSSION GOES, UNTIL I SAW THE RECENT PICTURE THAT SHE GAVE US A GLANCE AT, THAT DID ALERT ME TO THEIR INTENT AND THEIR STILL PUT MONEY INTO IT.

WERE AT A TIPPING POINT. WE CAN EITHER HELP THEM STOP PUTTING MONEY INTO IT OR WE CAN LET THEM COMPLETE IT AND NOT LOSE WHAT MONEY THEY'VE INVESTED, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT PAYING, I MEAN I'VE UNDERSTOOD SOME OF THE CONTRACTING LABOR YOU GET, YES, YOU BUY SOME MATERIAL UPFRONT AND PAY FOR THAT BUT THEIR ACTUAL WORK IS NOT A GREAT PRACTICE, BUT THAT'S HOW A LOT OF DEALS ARE MADE.

I WOULD BE, PERSONALLY WILLING, SHE DID PUT OUT THERE HUNDRED AND 20, BUT SHE DID DROP BACK INTO 60.

I WOULD BE WILLING TO SEE IF WE CAN LET 60 DAYS TURN OUT A BETTER IN GAME IF SHE'S WILLING TO KEEP HER MIND TO IT BUT SHE'S GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING IN 60 DAYS.

THAT WILL BE OUR DEAL. >> IS THAT A MOTION.

>> IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION OF ANYBODY, I WOULD MAKE THAT A MOTION TO GRANT A 60 DAY EXTENSION TO COME TO TERMS WITH.

>> 60 DAYS, WELL, SHE HAS 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL OF THE ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS AND THE FINAL INSPECTION SHOULD BE COMPLETED

BY THE EXPIRATION OF PERMITS. >> I THINK YOU'RE ON TRACK THERE, 60 MORE DAYS TO GET HER INSPECTIONS DONE AND WE ARE FOCUSED ON ELECTRICAL, BUT ALL OF THEM NEED TO BE.

>> WHATEVER STAFF IS REQUIRING. >> YES.

>> ARE YOU SAYING COMPLETED OR. >> RUFFIAN INSPECTIONS, IF THEY'RE GETTING BEYOND OUR EXPECTABLE MAIN TRADES, THEY'VE GOT TO GET IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION.

>> I THINK IT SAID THAT THE INSPECTIONS DIDN'T EXPIRE UNTIL

AUGUST, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES.

[01:35:04]

THE PERMITS EXPIRE AUG AUGUST 23, 2020 AND THAT IS ALL FINAL, ALL INSPECTIONS INCLUDED FINAL HAVE TO BE COMPLETED BY

THAT DATE. >> THAT'S ONLY IF THAT WORK ISN'T DONE. IF NO WORK IS GOING ON IT EXPIRES BUT IF WORK IS GOING ON IT NEVER EXPIRE.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO 60 DAY EXTENSION TO GET

THESE INSPECTIONS DONE. >> AND IF THAT IS DONE.

>> IF THAT IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS.

>> MOTION BY MR. SCHRADER. >> I SECOND BY MR. MCCOLLUM THAT WE GRANT 60 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL RUFFIAN INSPECTIONS AND IF THAT IS DONE, ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE EXPIRATION OF ALL PERMITS. ROLL CALL POLICE.

>> THANK YOU NEXT CASE PLEASE. >> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[5. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 19-004688: 610 Elm St. (OT ABILENE TEF #1, BLOCK 126, LOT 2) Owner: Alcantar, Brenda Leticia]

ITEM THREE, CASE NUMBER 19004688 ADDRESS 16 ELM STREET.

BRENDA.

SECRETARY OF STATE NO RECORDS FOR THIS NAME FOUND, TAX RECORDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS SHOW TO BE INACTIVE SINCE OCTOBER 8, 2019. THE SEARCH REVEALS BRENDA TO BE

THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY. >> THIS WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.

THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE.

IT WAS A STRUCTURE FIRE AND IT IS CURRENTLY, OR WAS AT THE TIME BEING USED AS A DUPLEX. AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS SEVERE FIRE DAMAGE THROUGHOUT THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN BACK IN 2019.

THERE IS SOME EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING ISSUES AS WELL. THERE ARE SOME STRUCTURAL AND ELECTRICAL ISSUES GOING ON IN FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE AND FIRE DAMAGE WE HAVE SOME INTERIOR INTERIOR STRUCTURAL DAMAGE FROM THE FIRE DAMAGE AND SOME MORE ELECTRICAL ISSUES INSIDE THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE AND SEVERE INTERIOR FIRE DAMAGE AND WE HAVE PLUMBING ISSUES AS WELL IN BOTH THE BATHROOMS OF THIS DUPLEX AND MORE STRUCTURAL ISSUES.

WE HAVE FIRE HAZARD AS WELL, ONE OF THE CLOSETS IN THE INTERIOR STORAGE THERE ARE SOME COMBUSTIBLE ITEMS. THIS IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROPERTY AS OF JANUARY 2020. IT WAS BOARDED UP SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO GET ADDITIONAL PHOTOS INSIDE BUT YOU CAN SEE THERE'S BEEN NO REPAIRS DONE AND SOME ELECTRICAL ISSUES OF THE EXTERIOR STILL REMAIN. THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS AS OF OCTOBER 7, THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED.

WE SENT NOTICE AND THE UTILITY SHUT OFF LETTERS.

2019 PROPERTY OWNER SAID SHE PLAN TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE.

DECEMBER 6, 2019 BRENDA DECIDED TO REPAIR THE STRUCTURE SO SHE WAS GIVEN A PLAN OF ACTION. DECEMBER 9 NEW LETTERS WERE SENT TO 30 - 60 AND INITIAL LETTERS OF COMBINATION.

JANUARY 14, 2020, NO PERMITS WERE PULLED THERE'S NO PLAN OF ACTION SUBMITTED. SHE PULLED DEMOLITION PERMIT.

2020 THE NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE.

AS OF TODAY, THE DEMOLITION PERMIT IS STILL GOOD BUT THERE

[01:40:06]

STILL HAS BEEN NO START TO THE DEMOLITION.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS PUBLIC NUISANCE AND HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE AND IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER EIGHT SECTION EIGHT -- 554, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST.

INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, ELECTRICAL WIRING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS TO ORDER THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WHEN IN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY

DEMOLISH. >> ANY QUESTIONS.

>> SO, WITHIN HAVING A DEMOLITION PERMIT IN HAND, GOING TO THE FORMAL MOTIONS OF THE BOARD TO DECLARE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND CONTINUE FORWARD WITH FORMER DEMOLITION.

>> YES OR. WE WOULD BASICALLY LIKE TO RECOMMEND, WE CAN ALLOW THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DEMOLISH IT BUT IN AN ATTEMPT TO ALSO PREVENT IT FROM SITTING THERE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME IS WHY WE WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT ORDER.

>> HOW LONG IS THE DEMOLITION PERMIT STACKED OF?

>> WE HAVE TO HAVE ACTION WITHIN 90 DAYS OR IT WOULD BECOME VOID.

>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 19004688.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 19.

LAST MUNICATION'S WITH THE OWNER.

>> THAT WAS FEBRUARY 4. SHE CAME THE DAY BEFORE THE INTERESTED SPADED BOB'S MEETING WHICH WAS CANCELED DUE TO THE WEATHER BUT SHE DID COME IN AND PULL THE PERMIT AND STATED THAT WAS HER INTENTION TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY.

>> SO IT'S BEEN A MONTH SINCE YOU SPOKE TO HER.

>> YES OR. >> SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HER

CURRENT INTENT IS. >> AS OF RIGHT NOW, JUST TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE PERMIT HAS BEEN PAID TO AND HANDED TO HER. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HER TAKING ACTION, WHETHER SHE WILL DEMOLISH IT HERSELF OR HIRE A

CONTRACTOR. >> THANK YOU.

IS JUST VERIFY THAT IT IS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED.

IS THAT RIGHT. >> YES OR.

BY THE BOARD ORDERING FOR HER TO DEMOLISH, IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO SPEEDED UP IN ORDER TO PREVENT IT JUST STAYING THERE FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE MONTHS WHICH EVENTUALLY THE CITY WILL END UP HAVING TO TAKE ACTION AND DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY.

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PROPERTY IS UP PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE AND

REPAIR WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. >> MOTION THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE IN THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS.

ROLL CALL.

>> I'D LIKE TO FILE THAT MOTION WAS THE OWNERS.

>> SECOND. THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS.

OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. ROLL CALL PLEASE.

[6. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 19-004718: 3025 N 12th St. (AOO5O SUR 88 PATRICK E DURST, BLOCK A, TRACT N 133.5 W 129 LOT 1) Owner: McNeill, Kern L.]

>> FINAL CASE ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 3F, CASE NUMBER 19004718.

THE ADDRESS LOCATED AT 3025 NORTH 12TH STREET.

[01:45:04]

CHECKLIST FOR RECORDS SEARCH SHOWS L MCNEIL AS OWNER.

IT SHOWS CARRIE L MCNEIL AS THE OWNER.

SECRETARY OF STATE NO ENTITY UNDER THIS NAME FOUND.

TAX RECORDS NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS SHOULD BE INACTIVE SINCE NOVEMBER 26, 2014, THE SEARCH REVEALS CARRIE MCNEIL TO BE THE OWNER. THIS WAS THE PUBLIC NOTICE ON THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING.

THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE.

THERE'S THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, AS YOU CAN SEE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE EXTERIOR THERE ARE LARGE OPENINGS.

AGAIN ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE WINDOWS AND DOORS AND IF YOU SEE THE PHOTOS TAKEN ON THE LEFT THEY WERE FROM SEPTEMBER 2019 AND MOST RECENT AS JANUARY 20 ON THE RIGHT.

AGAIN SHOWING NO IMPROVEMENT THE INTERIOR THE PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND UN- SECUREMENT ISSUES THE INTERIOR HAS MORE UNFINISHED AREAS. WE HAVE SOME HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL AND UNSECURE AREAS AGAIN THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. INTERIOR WALLS AND WINDOWS, AGAIN THERE'S NO SECUREMENT TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND MORE PLUMBING ISSUES MORE AREAS THAT ARE UNSECURED AS YOU CAN SEE DAYLIGHT SHINING THROUGH. TIMELINE OF EVENTS HAS MARCH 12, 2019 THE PROPERTY WAS INITIALLY REPORTED AS DILAPIDATED AND CERTIFIED MAIL WAS SENT TO THE OWNER.

ON THREE SEPARATE DATES, MAY 9, JUNE 10 AND JULY 22 NO PERMITS WERE REQUESTED, NO ONE WAS CONTACTED AND HE WAS ISSUED A CITATION ON THOSE DATES. SEPTEMBER 20, 2019, THE STRUCTURE WAS PARTIALLY DISMANTLED WITHOUT PERMITS SO A STOP WORK ORDER HAD TO BE IN PLACE IN A CITATION WAS ISSUED TO THE OWNER. ON SEPTEMBER 262,019TH, THE PROPERTY WAS REMOVED FROM THE DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE CASE AND CONDEMNED AND TERMED OVER TO THE CONDEMNATION PROGRAM.

INITIAL NOTICE AND 3060 LETTERS AND UTILITY SHUT OFF LETTERS WERE SENT. OCTOBER 8, 2019 EMMA NOTICE OF THE NOVEMBER 6, 2019 BOB'S MEETING, OCTOBER 17, 2019 STILL NO FURTHER PROGRESS. NOVEMBER 6, 2019 WAS THE BOB'S MEETING. THE BOARD ORDERED 3060.

THAT DAY THE CONTRACTOR CAME IN AND WAS GIVEN PLAN OF ACTION TO FILL OUT. NOVEMBER 8, 2019, THE BOB'S DECISION LETTERS WERE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

DECEMBER 2, 2019, THE OWNER AND HUSBAND CAME IN TO CHECK PROGRESS AND WERE INFORMED THE PLAN OF ACTION HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED AND PERMITS WERE NOT PULLED.

THEY BOTH EXPLAINED WHAT WAS REQUIRED OF THE OWNER AND PROVIDED ANOTHER BLANK PLAN OF ACTION.

DECEMBER 19, 2019, THE CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED THE PLAN OF ACTION. JANUARY 6, 2020 HE PULLED PERMITS. JANUARY 14, 2020 NO ROUGH IN INSPECTION HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND NO PROGRESS HAD BEEN MADE WITH THE STRUCTURE. FEBRUARY 10, 2020 NO WEAPONS WERE COMPLETED OR SCHEDULED. FEBRUARY 11, 2020 I SPOKE WITH MR. GLENN AND HE STATED HE WAS TOLD BY THE OWNER TO HOLD OFF ON STARTING ANY WORK. FEBRUARY 18, 2020 THE NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE. FEBRUARY 19, 2020 THE BOB'S NOTICE WAS MAILED TO THE OWNER AND MORE CURRENT UPDATES AS OF FEBRUARY 19, 2020 ALSO THE PROJECT WAS PLACED ON HOLD DUE TO INACTIVITY AND ON FAVORED 282020 I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM THE OWNER, ALAN CLARK STATED HE DID NOT HAVE MONEY TO BEGIN REPAIRS AND WAS REQUESTING MORE TIME.

I EXPLAINED WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO GRANT HIM MORE TIME TO HIM BEING PASSED THE A LOT OF TIME OF THE BOARD ORDER.

I INFORMED HIM HE WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHY HE NEEDED MORE TIME. HE STATED HE WOULD NOT BE ABLE

[01:50:02]

TO ATTEND THE BOB'S DUE TO BEING OUT OF TOWN SO I ADVISED HIM HE COULD SEND A REPRESENTATIVE ON HIS BEHALF.

AS OF TODAY THE STOP WORK ORDER HOLD ON THE PROJECT REMAINS AND DUE TO THEIR STILL BEING NO ACTIVITY.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THE PROPERTY A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND THAT IT IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND REPAIR WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. PURSUANT TO CHAPTER EIGHT, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXISTS. INADEQUATE SANITATION, STRUCTURAL HAZARD, NUISANCE, HAZARDOUS ELECTRICAL WIRING, HAZARDOUS PLUMBING, FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION.

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO FURTHER ORDER THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY

MAY DEMOLISH. >> SO THE OWNER'S MUNICATION IS HE DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO CONTINUE.

>> AS OF THE 20TH OF FEBRUARY, THAT'S WHAT HE STATES.

HE DIDN'T HAVE THE FUNDS CURRENTLY TO CONTINUE WITH THE

RESTORATION. >> IS HE AWARE A SALE AS

POSSIBLE AS A PLAN OF ACTION. >> HE DID MENTION INTEREST IN SELLING IT. HE SAID HE WOULD PREFER TO SELL IT AND OF COURSE MR. CLARK IS THE HUSBAND OF THE OWNER.

HE STATED THE REASON HE'S CONTINUING TO WANT TO REPAIR IT IS BECAUSE THE REQUEST OF THE WIFE THAT SHE WOULD LIKE THE STRUCTURE TO BE REPAIRED AND TURNED INTO A HOME.

HE CLAIMS HE WANTS TO LIVE IN IT BUT I DID INFORM HIM THAT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THE PROJECT IT NEEDED TO SEE

PROGRESS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COURSE OF SECUREMENT, AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT OF PLYWOOD AND BOARDING FOR THE CITY TO HIRE A CONTRACTOR IN ORDER TO SECURE THAT ENTIRE STRUCTURE.

THAT IS WHY THE PROPERTY REMAINS OPEN THE WAY IT IS.

>> IS THE HARDWOOD FLOORS OVER CONCRETE OR IS IT A WOOD FRAME FLOOR THAT THEY'VE ADDED ON SOMEWHERE.

>> IT APPEARS TO BE WOOD AT THIS TIME.

>> THAT PICTURE BEFORE, THAT'S JUST PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR THERE.

>> YES. OTHER PLACES IT LOOKS MORE LIKE VERY WEATHERED WOOD FLOORING THAT POSSIBLY COULD BE OVER WHO KNOWS WHAT, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I SEE A MIXTURE OF CONCRETE, IS THIS JUST A MIXTURE OF FLOOR FRAMING THE CONCRETE

AND WOOD. >> YES, IT IS A MIXTURE.

>> IT ALSO APPEARS THIS HOUSE HAS BEEN GUTTED.

I DON'T KNOW HOW NEW ALL THE FRAMING MEMBERS LOOKED TO BE PRETTY SOLID SO THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WENT ON BEFORE 2019 ON THIS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A HISTORY ON.

>> AS YOU PSALM IT TIMELINE IT STARTED OFF AS DILAPIDATION CASE. AS THE CODE OFFICERS WORKED IT AS SUCH, THEY WENT IN AND STARTED GETTING THE WHOLE STRUCTURE TO WHERE YOU SEE IT TODAY.

THAT'S WHEN THE STOP WORK ORDER WENT INTO PLACE AND WHERE THE.

FROM MATT POINT FORWARD NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN.

>> SO THEY GUTTED IT AFTER CONDEMNATION.

>> THEY GUTTED IT BEFORE WE CONDEMNED IT AS IT WAS BEING WORKED AS A DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE.

>> THIS COMES BEFORE US AND IT WAS STAFF, THEY HAD WINDOWS IN IT AT ONE TIME. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU RECALL IT THAT WAY, BUT, IT HAS BACKTRACKED.

THE WHOLE PROPERTY HAS GONE BACKWARD.

>> THE REASON, TO TOUCH ON WHAT MR. LITTLEJOHN WAS EXPLAINING COME THE STOP ORDER WAS PUT IN PLACE DUE TO THE FACT THAT ALL THE GUTTING AND REFRAMING THAT YOU SEE, BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE ON THE PROPERTY TODAY WAS ALL DONE WITHOUT ANY

BOARD PERMITS. >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE

PICTURES ONE MORE TIME. >> YES OR.

>> TWO BY 12'S AND THEIR IN THAT CEILING.

[01:55:05]

>> I WANT TO SEE THE EXTERIOR VIEWS.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. >> SO THAT'S THE FRONT, THAT'S THE NORTHWEST CORNER THAT'S THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE,

SOUTHWEST SIDE. >> I REMEMBER THIS CASE, THE SLAP WAS SITTING THERE AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A COVERED IS WHAT I RECALL. THAT GOES BACK A FEW YEARS.

I'VE DRIVEN BY THIS THING RECENTLY AND THERE IS NO SHEATHING ON IT, NOT EVEN THE WOOD SHEATH.

>> YOU SAID NO DECKING. >> YOU JUST SEE STUDS, A BUNCH OF IT HAS BEEN STRIPPED IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

I WAS WONDERING WHERE THIS PROPERTY STOOD BECAUSE WE HADN'T SEEN IT COME BACK AND I WAS IN THAT AREA AND SAW AND NOTICED THEY HAVEN'T DONE A THING TO IT.

THE TRAILERS IN THE SAME PLACE, AND THEY DID HAVE ATTEMPTS TO DRILLING POST HOLES TO PUT FENCE AROUND IT, BUT THAT NEVER

OCCURRED. >> THIS IS SUCH AN UNUSUAL PLACE FOR RESIDENTS, BUT IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT, THAT'S HER CHOICE. I WOULD HATE TO DEMOLISH THIS IF HE HAS A CHANCE TO SELL IT. MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD TURN IT INTO A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE OF SOME KIND IF HE HAD THAT

CHANCE. >> THERE IS A LOT OF STICK FRAME STRUCTURE THAT'S HOLDING UP, BUT IT CAN'T HOLD UP FOREVER.

>> WE DON'T KNOW THE STURDINESS OR HOW STRONG THAT STRUCTURE IS RIGHT NOW CONSIDERING THERE HAS BEEN SEVERE WEATHER ISSUES SINCE BASICALLY IT WAS GUTTED OUT SO THERE COULD BE SOME WEATHERIZATION ISSUES INSIDE THE STRUCTURE AS WELL.

OF COURSE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO TELL FROM THE PHOTOS, BUT THAT'S OUR CONCERN AND AGAIN TO MAINTAIN THE CONSISTENCY, AND GIVEN HIS TIMEFRAME AND THE FACT THAT AT THIS POINT HE HAS A VALID AND REPARABLE CONTRACTOR READY TO PREPARE WORK, BUT IT'S THE OWNER HIMSELF WHO IS TELLING THE CONTRACTOR TO NOT BEGIN ANYTHING. AGAIN, THE OWNER DID EXPRESS NO INTEREST IN SELLING THE PROPERTY.

SO AGAIN, THIS WAS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT THE PROPERTY FROM SITTING THERE ANY LONGER AND AGAIN HAVING ANY CHILDREN OR ANYBODY JUST WALK THROUGH AND LOOK AT IT AS A PLAYGROUND MAKES

IT UNSAFE TO THE PUBLIC. >> IT IS A PREDICAMENT, IT'S A SHAME THEY DIDN'T COME BEFORE US AND TELL US WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS WERE. WE'VE GOT A LOOK AT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE OF EVERYTHING.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION I GUESS WE OPEN IT UP

FOR PUBLIC HEARING. >> AT THIS TIME I OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 19004718.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 19 -- 004718 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION ON EMOTION.

>> IT'S FRUSTRATING. THE THING HAS POTENTIAL BUT WITH NO MOVEMENT, NO FUNDS, WE ARE LEFT HANGING HERE.

A GOOD RECOURSE FOR THEM WOULD BE TO TRY TO SELL THIS.

>> IF IT'S NOT EVEN PUT INTO CONDEMNATION, WINDOWS SOMETHING TRIGGER TAX SALE AND HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE.

>> ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL PARTY, THEY HAVE STATED TO US IN THE PAST THAT WHEN A PROPERTY GETS BEHIND ON AMOUNT OF $500 IN BACK TAXES, THAT'S WHEN THEY START CONSIDERING A TAX SALE ON THE

[02:00:03]

PROPERTY. AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE OWNER HAS

MAINTAINED THE PROPERTY TAXES. >> YES OR.

>> OKAY SO HE'S TRYING TO SATISFY HIS WIFE THOSE WERE HIS WORDS THAT HE WAS DOING THIS BECAUSE HIS WIFE WAS WANTING TO

TURN IT INTO A HOME. >> WE ALMOST NEED TO ENCOURAGE A

TRIGGER HERE. >> I THINK SHE NEEDS TO KNOW THAT IN ACTION IS NOT AN OPTION.

>> AND SHE WAS PRESENT AT THE NOVEMBER BOPS MEETING AS WELL, AND AGAIN, THAT'S A NEW PLAN OF ACTION WAS GIVEN.

I DO UNDERSTAND THERE HAS BEEN SOME ISSUES WITH HIS CONTRACTORS AS WELL BUT WE HAVE EXPLAINED TO HIM HE IS ON THE TIMELINE AND WE NEEDED THAT PLAN OF ACTION FOR PERMITS TO BE PULLED.

WEAVING GRANTED HIM A LITTLE EXTRA TIME TO GET THOSE PERMANENT DONE AND HE DOES HAVE A REPUTABLE CONTRACTOR BUT AT THIS POINT HE IS THE ONE THAT IS STALLING THE PROCESS BY TELLING HIM TO HOLD OFF ON DOING ANY REPAIRS.

>> WHAT IS THE TIMELINE MR. LITTLEJOHN, ON WHEN THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO SECURE IT. IS THERE A CERTAIN TIMELINE.

>> NO, SIR. WE CAN SECURE IT WHEN WE SEE

FIT. >> OR YOU CAN HOLD OFF.

>> RIGHT. >> IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE TO SECURE, VISUAL QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

>> I THINK WOULD PROBABLY BE CHEAPER DEFENSES THAN IT WOULD BE TO PUT SHEETING ON IT SO OUR OPTION IS, WITHOUT THE OWNER PRESENT, STATING THEIR INTENT, OTHER THAN WHAT IS REPORTED TO US HERE, IF WE GO AHEAD AND FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION, THERE'S RECOURSE IS TO GO TO DISTRICT COURT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO COMMENTS ON THE SUGGESTION THAT Y'ALL MADE ABOUT SELLING THE PROPERTY.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CONDEMNATION STATUS SO IF IT WERE TO RECEIVE A NEW OWNER, BASICALLY WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD TO GRANT THAT NEW OWNER OF 3060 WHICH WOULD GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE ON IT, AND AGAIN THIS IS WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE DEMO BECAUSE.

>> I UNDERSTAND AND I CAN SEE START ONE OF THESE RIGHT NOW.

THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. THAT'S A MOTION.

>> I SECOND. >> MOTION BY MR. SCHRADER, SECOND THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE IN A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND REPAIR WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR

DISCUSSION? >> I REALLY SEE, ALL I WOULD HAVE TO DO IS GO IN AND BUILD THE HOUSE.

I AGREE WE HAVE TO GO HEAD WITH EMOTION BUT GULLY,.

>> DOCTOR PARIS.

MOTION CARRIES. >> THAT IS THE END OF OUR

AGENDA. >> LET ME MAKE AN ORDER THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY MR. SCHRADER.

SECOND BY MR. MCCULLOUGH THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. ROLL CALL PLEASE.

[02:05:05]

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE HERE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.