[CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:12]
          AUGUST FIFTH 20 20 BOARD OF BULDING STANDARDS. 
          THOSE THAT WISH TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE SIGNED IN BEFORE THE BOARD IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO PLEASE DO SO AT THIS 
          [MINUTES]
TIME WHILE WE COMPLETE PRELIMINARIES. 
          FIRST IS AN APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY FIRST MEETING. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO 
          APPROVE? >> I MOVE THEY BE ACCEPTED. 
          >> MOTION BY MR. ALRED. >> SECOND BY MR. SLIDER THAT THE JULY FIRST MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. 
          MR. TURNER? MR. SLIDER HRADER MR. BEARD. 
          >> BUILDINGS MUST BE SECURED AND LOCKED AND CLEANED AND MOWED BY THE OWNER WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE RESULTS OF NOTICE OF THIS HEARING IF THIS IS NOT DONE, THE CITY MAY DO SO AND BILL THE OWNER. IN ANY CASE, WHERE THE BOARD ORDERS THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH A STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES, BUT THE OWNER FAILED TO APPEAL THE ORDER THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. 
          ANY APPEAL MUST BE FILED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE AGREED PARTY RECEIVED NOTICE OF THIS BOARD'S DECISION. AT THE HEARING YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED TO PRESENT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME NEEDED TO COME MEET REP 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 AND HEATING AND AIR-CONDITIONING CONTRACTORS. 
          YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT YOU AT THE HEARING. THE RIGHT TO INSPECT THE FILE ON THE PROPERTY AT THE OFFICE OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PRIOR TO THE HEARING. THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE PRESENCE OF CITY STAFF FOR THE PURPOSES OF QUESTIONING AT THE HEARING. WITH THAT BEING SAID OUR FIRST 
          [A. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 11-022: 871/873 Cedar St. (LTS 6 1793 RADFORD ABL OT), Owner: Ortiz, Antonio • Public Hearing]
CASE IS 11-022. IT WAS TABLED AT THE LAST MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION TO REMOVE IT 
          FROM THE TABLE? >> MOTION BY MR. TURNER. 
          SECOND BY MR. SHRADER. LET THE FIRST CASE BE REMOVED. 
          >> DOCTOR PARIS? >> AYE. 
          >> MR. ALRED? >> YES. 
          >> MR. MCCOLLUM? >> MR. TURNER? 
          >> MR. SHRADER? >> MR. BEARD? 
          >> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES. 
          >> GOOD MORNING. >> CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER FOR THE COMMITTEE ENHANCEMENT DIVISION. 
          CAN YA'LL HEAR ME OKAY WITH THIS MASK ON? SORRY. SO WE HAVE A TOTAL OF FIVE CASES ON OUR AGENDA TODAY. FIRST ITEM IS 3A CASE 22 ADDRESS AND 873 CEDAR STREET. THE RECORDS SHOW STATIONS COUNTY RECORDS AND WARRANTY DEEDS. ANTONIO ORTIZ IS THE OWNER TO BE ANTONIO ORTIZ AND SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS NO RECORDS FOR THIS NAME FOUND. TAXES ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 
          UTILITY RECORDS HAVE BEEN ENACTED SINCE 5/17/11. 
          THE OWNER SHOWS TO BE ANTONIO OR TIZ. 
          THIS WAS POSTED TOP STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING. 
          SINCE THE LAST MEETING THESE FOR UPDATES MADE. 
          THERE YOU HAVE THE FRONT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE WINDOWS HAVE BEEN PUT IN. THIS IS OUTSIDE. 
          [00:05:07]
YOU HAVE ENTIRE AREA THAT'S BEEN SECURED. 
          THIS IS THE REAR EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. AS YOU CAN SEE THE PHOTOS ON THE LEFT ARE TAKEN BACK TO JUNETEENTH AND THAT'S THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. 
          THIS IS THE INTERIOR, SO THE LEFT ON JUNE 10TH, THE ROOM IS THE WAY IT LOOKED AT THAT TIME, AND THEN ON JULY 28TH THROUGH THE WINDOW THAT'S THE SAME ONE FROM A DIFFERENT VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, AND AGAIN THAT AREA RIGHT THERE WITH THE OPENING HAS BEEN CLOSED OFF WITH A NEW WINDOW IN IT. 
          THIS THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          AGAIN YOU SEE THE CHANGES COMPARED TO JULY 28TH. 
          SO IN THE ESSENCE OF CONVERSATION AND TIME HERE AS WELL, WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THE TIMELINE SINCE THE LAST MEETING SINCE THIS IS AN EXTENSIVE TIME-LINE. 
          AS OF JULY FIRST FROM THERE WAS A 2020 MEETING ORDERED TO BE TABLED FOR 30-DAYS AND ON JULY 7TH WE GAVE MR. ORTIZ REFERRED PERMITS AND SCHEDULED A MEETING WITH PROPERTY INSPECTORS AND THEN ON JULY 13TH HE MET WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTORS AND WAS INSTRUCTED TO MEET WITH HIS CONTRACTORS FOR THE PROPER PERMITS. AS OF YESTERDAY, MR. ORTIZ CAME IN AND SUBMITTED A PLAN OF ACTION THAT WAS APPROVED. 
          HOWEVER, I DID NOT SHOW RECORDS OF PERMITS BEING PULLED SO HE'S PRESENT AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT. THE CURRENT STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE SPROOPT PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IS A HAZARD AND WOULD BE UNREASONABLE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8 FOR CONDITIONS EXIST. STRUCTURAL HAZARDS. 
          NUISANCE. HAZARDOUS WIRING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS TO ORDER THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL IN 30-DAYS OR 
          THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. >> ANY QUESTIONS MR. MORRIS? 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION MR. MORRIS? HOW MUCH DO THE PERMITS COST? 
          >> IT VARIES. IF IT'S THE SECOND TIME THE PRICE USUALLY GOES UP AND I THINK IT DEPENDS ON AMOUNT OF WO WORK. 
          >> ARE THEY HORRIBLY EXPENSIVE? ISN'T THIS THE CASE THAT THE PENALTY HAS THE THE BOARD HAS PREVIOUSLY ASSESSED? 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. >> I NOTICED IT'S BEEN ON THE 
          LIST SINCE 11? >> YES. 
          >> THE SAME OWNER THAT'S ON IT SINCE 11 OWNED IT? 
          >> NO. MR. ORTIZ TOOK OWNERSHIP ON JULY 9TH OF 2012 SO HE WAS SENT A NEW NOTICE AS OF AUGUST 9TH OF 2012. 
          >> SO HE'S OWNED IT SINCE 12? >> YES, SIR. 
          >> AND HE'S JUST NOW GETTING STARTED? 
          >> HE HAS HAD TO REPERMIT SEVERAL TIMES. 
          PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE, BUT SLOWLY WITH THE TIMELINE. 
          AND THE LAST TIME THE PERMITS EXPIREED IN JULY OF 2019 AND HE WAS UNAWARE THAT THE PER IT MANY M.I.T.S HAD EXPIRED AND THE STOP ORDER WAS PLACED AND HE WAS INFO INFORMED. BUT IN DECEMBER WHEN THE PERMIT WAS PULLED HE WAS TOLD THAT WOULD BE THE LAST TIME HE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO PERMIT AND SO WE TOLD HIM TO SECURE THE BUILDING AND WAIT FOR DECISION. THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT TO THE JULY MEETING AND THEN IT WAS ORDERED TO BE TABLED AND I BELIEVE IT WAS ALLOWED FOR MR. ORTIZ TO MEET WITH THE BUILDING 
          INSPECTOR, SO SEE WHAT'S LEFT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 
          >> AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN IT ON 11-022. 
          THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME 
          FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? >> MR. ORTIZ. 
          FROM OUR LAST MEETING I GUESS I HAD ENDED UP BEING WITH ALL THE INSPECTORS AND THEY WENT OVER THE PROPERTY WITH ME AND THE 
          [00:10:02]
ONLY THING WE HAD LEFT, THE STRUCTURAL INSPECTOR SAID EVERYTHING WAS FINE AND WE COULD MOVE FORWARD ON HIS BEHALF. 
          WE HAVE A FIVE TRIM OUT ON EITHER SIDE SO WE JUST NEED TO SET TOILETS AND TIE IN FIXTURES TO SINKS. 
          ON THE ELECTRICAL, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF PLUGS MISSING THAT WE'LL HAVE TO GET THE ELECTRICIAN TO TIE IN PLUGS AND SINCE THEN WE WERE GOING TO ADD CENTRAL AIR AND HEAT SO THAT WILL BE A PERMIT THAT WE'VE NEVER HAD. I GUESS AS OF YESTERDAY WE HAVE ALL OF OUR PLANS OF ACTION AND ORDERED SO WE'RE WAITING FOR THE 
          REST TO PULL THEIR PERMITS. >> YOU HAVE A TIME-LINE ON WHEN 
          IT MIGHT BE COMPLETEED? >> I HAD REQUESTED SIX WEEKS 
          WHICH IS 42 DAYS TO COMPLETE IT. >> OKAY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? MR. ORTIZ? THANK YOU, MR. ORTIZ. ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE. PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, SIR SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE 11-022 AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. 
          OR A MOTION. THANK YOU. 
          MR. ORTIZ IS CERTAINLY DEMONSTRATED THE DESIRE TO FINISH THIS JOB, AND GET IT OUT OF CONDEMNATION AND GET IT BACK ON THE TAX ROLL. YOU ALSO HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU. IS THERE A MOTION? 
          >> WELL, AS FAR AS SOME DISCUSSION MAY GO, THE FINDINGS ARE PROBABLY NOT THE CASE THAT WE SEE TODAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF OUR STAFF WOULD BE ABLE ADVISE US THAT THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN, THESE THINGS ON OUR LIST OF FINDINGS PROBABLY DO NOT OCCUR NOW OR ARE IMPROVED UPON? 
          >> YEAH, SO THE REASON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION HAS NOT CHANGED IS BECAUSE THE MEETING THAT FOR ORTIZ HAD WAS A SIMPLE INVESTIGATION AMONG BUILDING INSPECTORS TO LET HIM KNOW WHAT NEEDED TO BE COMPLETE. ONCE THEY PULLED PERMITS, THERE STILL NEEDS TO BE FINAL INSPECTIONS PASSED ON RECORD. 
          UNTIL WE HAVE THOSE PASSED, AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY STATING EVERYTHING IS GOOD, WE HAVE TO LEAVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CONDITIONS EXISTING STILL. IN OTHER WORDS WE CAN'T CLOSE THAT OUT UNTIL WE HAVE THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          >> AND IN THE LIGHT OF THIS BO BOARD, WE'RE RECOGNIZING SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE IMPROVED UPON 
          BASED ON PHOTOGRAPHY? >> IT'S EVIDENT THAT THERE HAS BEEN PROGRESS AND IMPROVEMENTS MADE, BUT LEGALLY. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THIS IS OUR DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION 
          RIGHT NOW. >> YES, AND I AGREE. 
          I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE YOUR CONCERN ABOUT WHY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS STILL THE SAME. 
          >> OKAY. ALRIGHT. 
          WELL BASED ON SEEING THE IMPROVED EFFORT, THANK YOU, BASED ON SEEING THE IMPROVED EFFORT, I SEE THAT WE GRANT, I SAY THAT WE GRANT THE OWNER'S REQUEST. 
          NOW HE SAID, 42 DAYS? BASED ON HIS CALENDAR. 
          >> YES. >> WE PROBABLY CAN GRANT THAT 42 
          DAYS AND GO FROM THERE. >> 42 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE 
          PROJECT? >> 42 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE PERMIT AND GET ALL PERMITS SIGNED OFF ON AND GET IT OUT OF 
          THE CONDEMNATION STATUS. >> OKAY. 
          MOTION BY MR. SHRADER TO GRANT THE OWNER 42 DAYS. 
          [00:15:02]
          >> TO OBTAIN PERMITS AND PROVIDE A PLAN OF ACTION. 
          WELL, THAT'S NOT PART OF IT. THE 42 DAYS TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS AND COMPLETE THE WORK, AND GET THE INSPECTIONS BY ALL THE EXPIRATION DATES OF THE PERMITS. 
          >> OKAY. 42 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. 
          >> COMPLETE THE PROJECTS. >> I SECOND THE MOTION. 
          >> SECOND BY MR. ALRED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? 
          >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT IN RELATION TO MR. SHRADER'S COMMENTS IS THAT, I VOTED AGAINST LAST MONTH IN GIVING HIM THE EXTENSION AND MY SOUL PURPOSE WAS NOT TO FAIL THE RECOGNITION OF THE WORK DONE, BUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES AND WHEN IT TAKES AN OWNER SEVEN YEARS AND NUMEROUS. 
          TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME OF ISSUES AND A FAILURE TO RESPOND, I'M GOING TO REMAIN SKEPTICAL, AND FRANKLY, I REMAIN SKEPTICAL TODAY. MR. ORTIZ PAYING CIVIL PENALTIES, I APPLAUD YOU FOR, SIR AND I GREATLY RESPECT AND THANK YOU AS A CITIZEN FOR DOING THAT. 
          BUT THE DELAY OF 7-YEARS UNDER THE CURRENT OWNERS, AS I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, I'M GOING TO REMAIN SKEPTICAL. 
          >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL PLEASE? 
          >> I'M SORRY. DID YOU SAY TO COMPLETE ROUGH 
          ENDS OR ALL FINAL INSPECTION? >> ROUGH ENDS. 
          AS HE STATE HEAD CAN FINISH ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS. 
          >> SO ALL FINAL INSPECTIONS IS THE MOTION? 
          >> YES. >> ROLL CALL PLEASE? 
          >> DOCTOR PARIS? >> NO. 
          >> ALRED? >> YES. 
          >> MR. MCCOLLUM? >> YES. 
          >> MR. TURNER? >> YES. 
          >> MR. SHRADER? >> YES. 
          >> MR. BEARD? >> YES. 
          >> MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU. 
          [B. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 17-009: 633 S II St. (OT ABlLENE BLK 208 ANDERSON I-A, LOT 7-12), Owner: Abilene Courts Development Corp LLC • Public Hearing]
GOOD LUCK MR. ORTIZ. NEXT CASE IS 17-009 ALSO TABLED LAST WEEK. LAST MONTH. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO UNABLE PLEASE? 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO UNABLE IT MOTION BY MR. SHRADER AND SECOND BY MR. ALRED TO UNABLE IT. 
          >> ROLL CALL. >> DOCTOR PARIS? 
          >> YES. >> MR. ALRED? 
          >> YES. >> MR. MCCOLLUM? 
          >> YES. >> MR. TURNER? 
          >> YES. >> MR. SLIDEER? 
          >> YES. >> MR. BEARD? 
          >> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT ITEM IS 3B CASE 17-009. 
          LOCATION 633 SOUTH 11TH STREET. THE RECORDS SHOW THAT THE COUNTY RECORDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS THE OWNER THE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE OWNER AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHOWS DON KNIGHT AND DALE RANKIN TO BE THE OWNER. 
          TAX RECORDS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UTILITY RECORDS SHOW INACTIVE SINCE MAY 4RTH OF 2006 AND SEARCH REVEALS THIS TO BE THE OWNER AS LISTED. SAYS THE PUBLIC NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING. 
          AND AGAIN, SINCE THE LAST MEETING AS OF JULY 28TH, I'LL SHOW THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STRUCTURE. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FRONT DOOR ON THE FACADE WAS REPLACED WHERE THE FRONT GATE WAS FROM THE SHEET METAL TO PLYWOOD AND IT WAS ALL REPAINTED. EXTIER YOU ELECTRICAL ISSUES STILL REMAIN. THIS IS THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. SOME OF THE GRAFFITI WAS COVERED UP AND PAINTED OVER. THE WEST SIDE OF THE WALL IS STILL BULGING OUT. AS OF JULY 28TH. 
          WEST SIDE INSTRUCTION WALL ISSUES STILL HAVE CRACKS IN THE WALLS. SAME THING IN THE SOUTHSIDE REAR 
          [00:20:02]
OF THE STRUCTURE. EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE SHOWS LARGE CRACKS THROUGHOUT THE WALLS STILL. 
          LARGE CRACKS AND PIECES OF THE WALL MISSING. 
          AND THERE'S THE EAST SIDE OF THE WALL STILL SHOWING TO BE BULGING OUT A LITTLE BIT FROM BOTH ANGLES. 
          THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE SOME LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN DONE. 
          THEY CUT DOWN VEGETATION AND MOWED AND AS OF JULY 28TH, THIS IS A CLOSER LOOK TO THE INTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY C. 
          OF COURSE THE INTERIOR FLOOR, NO PROGRESS HAS MAID BEEN MADE ON THIS SINCE NO REMODELING HAS BEEN DONE. 
          HERE'S A COUPLE OF PHOTOS OF WHAT THE INSIDES OF THE ROOMS LOOK LIKE. SO UPDATED PHOTOS TAKEN YESTERDAY, I WAS INFORMED THAT SOME BEAMS HAVE BEEN PLACED TO SUPPORT THIS AND THE THAT'S WHAT THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE LOOKED LIKE YESTERDAY, AND THAT'S THE EASE SIDE OF THE STRU STRUCTURE. 
          AGAIN DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE TIME-LINE I'M GOING TO UPDATE SINCE THE LAST MEETING AND AS OF JULY FIRST, 2020 THE MEETING WAS TABLED FOR 30-DAYS AND JULY 7TH A MEETING WAS SCHEDULED WITH THE PRESERVATION LEAGUE TO DISCUSS OWNERSHIP. 
          WE DID MEET WITH THE AP O. AND THEY CURRENTLY DID NOT HAVE A DATE WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO BEGIN TO WORK AND THEY GAVE US AN UPDATE ON THE CURRENT FUNDING STATING THEY HAD $10750 AND WE REITERATED HOW IMPORTANT IT WAS TO LET US KNOW WHEN IT WAS COMPLETE. ON JULY 15TH A NOTE WAS NOTICED AND MAILED TO THE AGENT. JULY 17TH AN E-MAIL FROM MR. PASCAL INFORMED ME THE PROPERTY WAS CLEANED UP AND THEY MADE PROGRESS. ON JULY 30TH I RECEIVED ANOTHER E-MAIL THAT HE WAS INFORMED THE TITLE SEARCH CURRENTLY SHOWED A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY THEY WERE NOT AWARE OF AND MR. BLACK DID AN EXTENSIVE TITLE SEARCH AND THERE WAS A FILE SUIT AGAINST THE PREVIOUS OWNER PREVENTING THEM TO COMPLETE THE TITLE TRANSFER AND GET ADDITIONAL FUNDING. 
          THEY NOTIFIED THE STATE REPRESENTATIVE THAT ARE WORK ON OBTAINING A RELEASE OF LIEN AND THEY HAVE OBTAINED LEGAL COUNSEL. SHE STATED THAT AML WAS SET TO BEGIN WORK IN AUGUST AND WAS REMINDING THAT NO WORK SHOULD BEGIN WITHOUT PERMITS. THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL UPDATES SINCE THEN BEFORE THIS PRESENTATION WAS SUBMITTED. 
          AS OF JULY 30TH, I RECEIVED AN E-MAIL STATING THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WAS RELEASING A LEAN. SHE INFORMED ME THE TREES AND GRAFFITI HAD BEEN REMOVED AND THEN ON AUGUST 3RD SHE SAID THE RELEASE OF THE LEAN WAS RECORDED, BUT THEY'RE WAITING TO HEAR BACK FOR THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY FOR CONFIRMATION AND THAT SHE ALSO RECEIVED WORD FROM STUCCO CONTRACTORERS TO BEGIN WORK. YESTERDAY SHE INFORMED ME THAT INSURANCE AGENT PREPARED LIABILITY COVERAGE FOR THEM AND IS READY TO BE SIGNED ONCE THE TITLE IS TRANSFERRED AND I'M SORRY, THAT IT WAS LAST E-MAIL FROM MRS. PASCAL. 
          YESTERDAY AFTER DOING AN UPDATED TITLE SEARCH, IT SHOWS THAT ABILENE COURTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WAS NO LONGER THE NAME ON THE DEED AND THE PRESIDENT MR. RANKIN GRANTED ALL RIGHTS OR SIGNED OVER THE DEED BASICALLY TO DALE AND STEFANY 
          RANKIN FOR THE PROPERPROPERTY. >> ANY QUESTIONS? 
          >> CAN YOU REITERATE THAT? WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY NOW? 
          >> DALE AND STEFANY RANKIN SHOWS TO BE THE NEW OWNERS OF THE PROPER PROPERTY. 
          THEY SWITCH THE NAME FROM THE L.LLC. 
          >> DO YOU HAVE A DATE WHEN THAT OCCURRED? 
          >> JULY 30TH. OR JULY 31ST, I'M SORRY. 
          [00:25:03]
          EXCUSE ME. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 17-009. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR 
          THE RECORD, PLEASE? >> I DIDN'T FINISH GIVING RECOMMENDATION, SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE SPROOPT PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE AND TO REPAIR THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE REASONABLE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 8. INADEQUATE SANITATION. 
          STRUCTURAL HAZARDS AND FAULTY WOOD. 
          ORDER THAT THE OWNERS ORDER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL WITHIN 30-DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. 
          >> THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW OPEN ON CASE 17009. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR 
          THE RECORD. >> MORNING. 
          DALE RANKIN. SO WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF, GETTING THE TITLE IN A FORM THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAGUE. 
          WE DISCOVERED THERE WAS A LEAN WE DID NOT KNOW ABOUT ON THE PROPERTY, SO A PRETTY EXTENSIVE EFFORT WAS MADE THROUGH A GROUP OF INFLUENTIAL PEOPLE TO GET THE TITLE CLEAR ED SO THERE WERE POLITICIANS AND FEDERAL JUDGES AND A TEAM OF LAWYERS INVOLVED AND FORTUNATELY, EVERYTHING WORKED OUT. 
          WE GOT THE TITLE, THE DEED UNINCUMBEREDED AND NOW WE CAN TRANSFER IT. THE REASON WE PUT IT IN MY PERSONAL NAME AS APPOSED TO THE ABILENE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WAS THAT THE PRESERVATION LEAGUE DID NOT WANT TO LET'S SAY TAKE OVER ABILENE DEVELOPMENT COURTS CORPORATION. 
          THAT COMPANY WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED TO DO WHAT IT SAID. 
          DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY, SO FOR TAX PURPOSES, IT MADE MORE SENSE FOR US TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE L.L.C. AND PUT IT IN OUR OWN NAME AND TRANSFER THE PROPERTY CLEAN THAT WAY, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF THE L.L.C., SO THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT. SO NOW, THE DEED IS UNINCUMBERED AND WE'RE READY TO TRANSFER. IT SEEMS AND WE CAN TRANSFER IT TODAY, BUT WITH THE TITLE COMPANY THERE'S A BACKLOG OF CLOSINGS AND THE EARLIEST WE CAN GET IS AUGUST 13TH, I THINK. 
          AT 2:00 P.M. IT IS SCHEDULED TO TRANSFER AND SO FROM THAT POINT ON, ABILENE PRESERVATION LEAGUE WILL TAKE OVER. 
          I WILL SAY JUST TO KIND OF REITERATE, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY SO MANY PEOPLE GOT INVOLVED TO FREE UP THIS DEED WAS, YOU KNOW, THE RECOGNIZED HISTORIC THAT WE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL TIMES WITH THIS PROPERTY. THE SIGNIFICANCE. 
          THEY WERE MOTIVATED TO SAVE THIS PROPERTY AS WE ARE, BUT ALSO IT'S THE MISSION OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE WITH THIS PROPERTY FROM HERE ON OUT THAT WAS VERY FAVORABLY VIEWED BY GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WORKED TO GET THIS UNINCUMBERED AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT THE PLANS ARE FOR THIS. 
          I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JOSH NOW, SINCE I'M NOT GOING TO BE OWNING THE PROPERTY MANY MORE DAYS AND LET HIM TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PLAN IS GOING FORWARD. UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR 
          ME? >> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. RANKIN? 
          >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. 
          >> I'M JOSH BLACK, 97 GLEN ABBEY STREET, ABILENE TEXAS. 
          OUR OFFICES ARE IN LOCKDOWN BECAUSE OF SOMEONE WAS INFECTED. 
          BUT WE STILL ARE WORKING FROM HOME AND TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AS MUCH AS WE CAN. WE TRY TO GO FROM TIME-LINES AND ADDRESSING ISSUES AND THEN WE GOT INTO SOME OF THE STICKS LAST TIME, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO A POINT WE CAN SPEAK. 
          [00:30:01]
WHAT DOES IT COME DOWN TO FOR TIME-LINES? WE'VE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION FROM MR. LITTLE JOHN THAT WE CAN PULL PERMITS UNDER MR. RANKIN'S NAME AND TRANSFER THEM AS SOON AS WE HAVE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY. AML SENT NOTICE TO THE STATE SO THEY HAVE A 30-DAY WINDOW STARTING A FEW DAYS AGO, AND THE DUMPSTERS ARE TO BE ON. WE HAVE CONSTRUCTION WALL STUCCO BRICK AND MASONRY AND ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING THOUGH WE'RE NOWHERE NEAR THAT STATE SO THEY'RE PREPARED TO MOVE IN WE PULLED PERMITS FOR ASBESTOS REMOVAL. 
          THE APL GOES INTO PROPERTIES THAT NO ONE CAN SAVE. 
          IT'S HISTORICALLY IMPORTANT IF IT HAS A PRESERVATION COMPONENT WE TRY TO SAVE AS MUCH OF THE PROPERTY AS WE CAN. 
          ONCE THEY START THE WORK, WE TALKED ABOUT THE INSTRUCTION WALL COMPONENT NEEDED TO SECURE THE BRICK FACADE IF NOTHING ELSE WE HAVE TO SAVE THAT. ALL OF THE HISTORICAL NATIONAL REGISTER HISTORIC RESERVATIONS ARE GONE IF WE LOSE THAT TWO PORTION. TWO SEPARATE STUCCO CONTRACTORS SAID THAT'S VERY SAVEABLE AND WE HAVE TO DO IT IN A PARTICULAR WAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR STANDARDS. THIS IS A 90-YEAR-OLD STRUCTURE AND IT HAS TO BE DONE A PARTICULAR WAY TO KEEP THAT STATUS SO THAT CONFINES WHAT WE CAN DO AND HOW WE DO IT. 
          ONCE THEY START THEIR WORK ON THAT, WE'LL KNOW HOW MUCH OF THE BUILDING WE CAN SAVE. WORST CASE SCENARIO IS THE BRICK FACADE IN WHICH CASE IT WILL LOOK VERY MUCH LIKE A DEMOLITION WITH EXCEPTION OF HOW WE SAVE COMPONENTS AND ALL THE EXTENSION WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. WHILE WE'RE DOING THAT WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CODE. THEY'RE VERY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO THERE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, SO WE HAVE TO DO BOTH THOSE THINGS IN CONCERT. I WISH I COULD SAY WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND FIX THE BUILDING, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE KIND OF WORK WE DO THERE. THE FIRST STEP, WELL THE NEXT STEP IS, SPEAKING WITH THE LAND OFFICER AND THE TRAFFIC OFFICER BECAUSE WE NEED TO GET A CONSTRUCTION STAGING PERMIT FOR THE FENCING THERE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM THE CONSTRUCTION AND TO ALLOW ENOUGH ROOM FOR CONTRACTORS TO BE SAFE FROM FALL HAZARDS. LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW ABOUT AN 8 FOOT BUMP OUT ON FENCEING INTO CITY PROPERTY AND IT SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE WATER AND SEWER LINES TO THE EAST AND IN THE GREEN AREA THERE'S NO UTILITIES. 
          WE'LL CONTINUE THROUGH THAT WITH ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND NUISANCE ISSUES FOR IT, AND WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THIS AS FAR AS IT CAN GO. USUALLY I HAVE MUCH MORE ENTHUSIASM FOR YOU. IT IS A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS. 
          IT DOESN'T FALL INTO THE PERIMETERS OF THE 30/60 RULES. 
          WE WON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE SIDES AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME. I WISH I COULD GIVE YOU A SPECIFIC TIME-LINE, BUT THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE RIGHT NOW. 
          ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS WORK WILL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY. 
          AML WILL GO IN A COUPLE OF DAYS PRIOR TO US OWNING THE BUILDING. 
          THEY CAN'T DO ANY REMOVAL UNTIL WE DO. 
          THE INSURANCE GOES INTO AFFECT THE SAME DAY. 
          AUGUST 30TH AND EVERYTHING IS IN LINE AND READY TO GO, BUT IT'S, I WISH I COULD TELL YOU MORE COULD HAPPEN TODAY RIGHT NOW, BUT ALL WE CAN DO IS GET INTO THE AREAS THAT ARE DEEMED SAFE AND COUNT WITH THE CLEAN UP EFFORTS AND REMOVE WHAT WE CAN THAT'S NOT IN THE HOT AREA, AND CONTINUE WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE VEGETATION AND FIX THE FENCES AND MOVE FORWARD. 
          THAT'S MY PIECE FOR THAT. >> HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONSULTING INSTRUCTION WALL ENGINEERS INVOLVED? 
          >> THE ONLY INSTRUCTION WALL IS FROM THE A.M.L GROUP FROM THE WORK THEY'VE DONE PREVIOUSLY AND THE WELDERS THAT WILL BE COMING IN TO DO THE WORK ON THAT. THE TIMBERS ARE ALL STILL IN PLACE AND THE INSTRUCTION WALL PART FROM WHAT WE CAN TELL IS FROM THE DAMAGE FROM THE HAILSTORM CAUSED DAMAGE TO THE FLOORS AND THOSE ARE PULLING WALLS IN AT THE BASE. 
          THE TIMBERS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE CAUSING THE DAMAGE IS NOT THE 
          [00:35:01]
CASE. BECAUSE OF ALL THE CONCRETE INVOLVED IN THAT STUCCO IS BASICALLY PETRIFIED THE WOOD THAT'S ACTUALLY DRAWING THAT IN AND THE FLOORBOARDS THAT WOULD NORMALLY CAUSE THAT STRUCTURE TO BE SOUND IS STARTING TO CAVE IN THE WALLS. ONCE WE SECURE THAT, THEY CAN GO IN AND ADD ADDITIONAL STEAL OR WOOD TO SAVE THAT BUCK LENGTH. 
          UNTIL WE GET THERE WE WON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN. 
          >> CAN YOU GIVE US INSIGHT INTO THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING YOU ARE 
          ASKING FOR? >> MOST DONORS LIKE THEY'RE INFORMATION TO BE DISCREET. WE'RE AT $50,000 RIGHT NOW. 
          THE LARGER DONORS WHO NORMALLY WE WOULD WAIT UNTIL WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE PROPERTY. WE TONIGHT LIKE TO MAKE REQUESTS BECAUSE WE WANT TO ENSURE THEM THERE WILL NOT BE ANY MORE LEGAL PROBLEM, SO WHEN WE GET THE INSURANCE, THAT'S WHEN THE LARGER COMPANIES COME IN THE COMPONENT IS ABOUT $86 THOUSAND AND WE STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT MATCHING GRANT WE HAVE ENSUREED FOR ADDITIONAL $30,000 AND THAT TAKES US TO 85,000 DOLLARS. THE AP ML HAS A 40 YEAR TRADITION OF MAKING THESE THINGS HAPPEN AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO 
          STOP THAT NOW. >> ANY QUESTIONS? 
          >> I'D LIKE TO COMMENT THAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER. SO THE WORK DONE THERE IT CERTAINLY LOOKS NICER. MY QUESTION IS DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA? YOU MIGHT HAVE $56,000 IN PLACE. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE TOTAL COST IS GOING TO BE? BECAUSE IF THE FUNDING DOES NOT COME THROUGH WE MAY BE IN THE 
          SAME PLACE TWO YEARS FROM NOW? >> YES, SIR. 
          IF THE FUNDING DID NOT COME THROUGH WE'D BE IN THE SAME PLACE. WE'VE NEVER FAILED MEET A 
          FUNDING GOAL. >> I APPRECIATE THAT AND THE WORK THAT YOU'VE ALREADY DONE COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER, BUT THE FACT IS THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF THE TOTAL COST THAT MAY, THIS PROJECT MAY REQUIRE? 
          >> THE END GAME OF THIS IS NOT JUST TO SAVE THE SHELL AND SAVE IT, BUT TO HAVE A NEW OWNER OCCUPANT AND WE HAVE A BUYER IN MIND. AND THEIR LONG RANGE PLAN INVOLVES A LARGE SCALE PROJECT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE DON'T PUT A TIME-LINE ON IT AND TELL YOU THAT THIS IS JUST A BUILDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO ROUGH THINGS IN AND GET TO IT COMPLETION. 
          WE WANT TO MAKE A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE NEWLY FORMED CORPORATION UNDER THAT WING CALLED THE ABILENE RESTORATION MINISTRIES AND THEY HAVE A STORIED PAST ALSO OF SAVING OLDER STRUCTURES AND MAKING THEM PART OF THEIR MISSION. 
          WE CAN GET INTO THAT TODAY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KNOW. 
          THE FUNDING FOR THAT WILL BE CLOSE TO SEVEN FIGURES TO BE ABLE TO PUT IN THE NEW FACILITY ON THAT BUILDING, BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TODAY IS RESCUE THE BUILDING AS WE SEE IT NOW, TO TAKE IT AS FAR AS WE CAN IN RESTORATION EFFORTS. 
          DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> THANK YOU. 
          I'M SMILING UNDER THE MASK. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY 
          QUESTION. >> THERE ARE BIGGER PROJECTS GOING ON AND THE NUMBERS ARE ENORMOUS. 
          THE DONORS DON'T LIKE TO SHARE THEIR INFORMATION ON IT. 
          THEY LIKE THEIR PHILANTHROPY DISCREET AND WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE SIX ISSUES. ISSUE FOUR IS GONE. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH TODAY. 
          THE PLANS ARE MUCH BIGGER THAN JUST GETTING THIS OUT OF CONDEMNATION AND MUCH BIGGER THAN TRYING TO SAVE JUST A LITTLE PIECE OF THE BUILDING, BUT I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS 
          WHAT'S ON THE TABLE TODAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. 
          BLACK? >> MR. BLACK, WHAT'S THE EXTENT OF ASBESTOS IN THE BUILDING THERE? 
          >> IT'S A 28 PAGE REPORT AND I NEED A LAWYER TO HELP ME WITH IT. THE WORST COMPONENT OF IT IS THE STUCCO ITSELF. IT'S ONLY ONE PERCENT, BUT IT MAKES THE STUCCO FIRE RETARDANT. BY TRYING TO SAVE THE STUCCO COMPONENT AND ENCAPSULATING IT, WE DON'T HAVE TO REMOVE THAT, WHICH IS A LARGE PART OF THE COST, AROUND WE GET TO KEEP THAT NATIONAL REGISTER STATUS THAT MAKES US ELIGIBLE FOR THAT 
          [00:40:03]
GRANTS THAT GET INTO THE BIG NUMBERS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          THERE'S ALSO SOME COMPONENTS IN SOME OF THE 1950'S RENOVATIONS THAT WERE MADE INTO SOME OF THE WALLS AND AREAS INTO THE WET WALLS WHEN THEY CLOSED IN SOME OF THE MODEL-T, OLD PARKING GARAGE STRUCTURES AND THAT'S WHEN THEY ADDED BATHROOMS AND THAT'S WHY WE CAN'T GO IN WE'D LOVE TO CLEAR THAT, BUT MOST OF THE ROOMS HAVE SOME ASBESTOS COMPONENT IN IT SO AML OUR CONTRACTOR WILL GO IN WEARING SUITS AND CLUB UP THE AREA, SO THEN WE CAN GO IN AND PULL OUT THE OTHER PORTIONS OF IT. 
          THE PART OF THE BUILDING WE NEED TO SAVE. 
          >> BASICALLY WE'LL BE SALVAGING AS MUCH OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING 
          MATT MATERIALS AS POSSIBLE. >> YOU'RE SAYING AML WILL ENCAPSULATE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PANELS 
          ON THE OUTSIDE? >> YES, SIR. 
          IF IT'S POSSIBLE IF THEY GO AND IN TRY TO SAVE THE BRICK FACADE WE MIGHT RUN INTO MORE PROBLEMS BECAUSE FLOORING IS GONE IF THEY CANNOT SAVE THE STUCCO, LIKE WE SAID, I DON'T WANT TO SUGARCOAT IT. WORST CASE SCENARIO THAT IT'S TOO FAR GONE AND ALL OF IT HAS TO BE REMOVED AND IN WHICH CASE IT WILL LOOK LIKE A DEMOLITION. IF WE CAN SAVE THAT STUCCO PORTION IT MAKES MORE MONEYS AVAILABLE LATER ON FOR THE LARGER SCALE PROJECT, THE END GAME OF THIS LOCATION AND WHAT IT CAN DO FOR A PARTICULAR COMMUNITY. 
          UNTIL WE GET IN THERE AND START TO SEE WHAT THE SUREING IS GOING TO DO FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE STUCCO AND WE ARE ABLE TO REMOVE THE HOT AREAS INSIDE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CAN BE SAVED. 
          >> THAT PRICE 80,000 DOLLARS DOES THAT INCLUDE THE STUCCO? 
          THAT'S QUITE EXTENSIVE. >> THAT'S THE WORST CASE SCENARIO QUOTE. THAT'S THE QUOTE IF EVERYTHING GOES WRONG WHILE THEY'RE SAVING THE BRICK. 
          SO THAT'S A LARGER SCALE. WE'RE HOPING TO KEEP THE COSTS DOWN. IF WE'RE ABLE TO SAVE IT, THAT STUCCO COMPONENT, YOU KNOW NORMAL PROCEDURAL THINGS IS ONLY ABOUT $8,000 TO 10,000 DOLLARS. THERE'S THREE BUCKLING AREAS AND THEY HAVE TO SURE THAT UP AND ADD THE BRACING AND THEN THEY FILL IT IN WITH CEMENT AND DO THEIR STUCCO MAGIC. 
          WHATEVER THEY DO TO GET THAT FINISHED. 
          IT IS A BIG PROJECT. I'M TRYING TO SAVE US TIME BY SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO THE POINT OF THE PROCEDURE, BUT I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          >> WELL, MY OTHER QUESTION IS AND YOU LED INTO THIS, IF YOU GET INTO IT AND IT'S MORE MONEY AND YOU DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY AND YOU SAY YOU NEVER FAILED COMPLETE A PROJECT, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T? DOES THE CITY HAVE TO DEMOLISH 
          IT? >> NO WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID THAT FOR THE CITY. THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL COST. 
          THE LEAN FOR THAT FAR EXCEEDS THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE CITY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO BEAR THAT BURDEN. 
          WE HAVE PROMISED FUNDS IN EXTENSION OF THAT IF WE GET INTO THAT, WHERE WE DON'T WANT TO GO WITH THAT. 
          MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND OUR NORMAL DONATION BASE HAVE MADE ADDITIONAL PROMISES FOR THAT AS A CORPORATION WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ON ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDS BECAUSE WE HAVE A POTENTIAL BUYER FOR IT WE CAN GET INTO A DEBT ISSUE WHO WHICH WE WOULD NOT LIKE TO DO, BUT WE HAVE THAT AT OUR DISPOSAL. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. BLACK? 
          >> I HAVE A SIMPLE QUICK QUESTION. 
          SO YOU THINK YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO SECURE THE BUILDING ADEQUATELY TO MEET THE STANDARDS SET FORTH BY CITY INSPECTORS? 
          YES OR NO? >> I'M AN ENGINEER. 
          WE DON'T KNOW THE FINAL COST SO IF I TAKE THE CASH ON HAND AND THE WORST CASE NO IF I TAKE THE SCENARIO I WOULD SAY I HAVE IT 
          RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU.SCENARIO I WOULD S 
          RGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE STEP FORWARD. 
          [00:45:03]
          >> I'M ROSS AND I LIVE IN THE ORIGINAL TOWN NORTH 1110 AND I'M REPR REPRESENTING A CORPORATION AND HAVE A STATEMENT. I'M HERE TO SPEAK FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE ABILENE COURTS. 
          THE EYES OF TEXAS ARE UPON US. THEY ARE UPON US TODAY BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT NOT ONLY TO ABILENE, BUT THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS AND THE NATIONAT-LARGE. 
          IN THIS MOMENT WE ASK OURSELVES QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO WE ARE AS A CITY. IS ABILENE A PLACE THAT PRESERVES HISTORY OR A PLACE THAT NEGLECTED BEAUTY. 
          DOES IT PROTECT A PROPERTY WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE BEAUTY OR IS ABILENE A PLACE THAT BULLDOZES THE PAST. 
          I'M THE BOARD PRESENT FOR A LOW CALL NONPROFIT FOCUSED ON THE RESTORATION OF MEN WHOSE LIVE HAVE BEEN DERAILED BY THE PAINFUL REALITIES OF RESTORATION. 
          THIS- HAD LED TO CARING WITH COMMUNITIES AND THE AREA AGENCY ON AGING AND THE FOOD BANNING OF CENTRAL WEST TEXAS AND ABILENE FRESH AND FOR ALL ONE MISSIONS AND OTHERS. 
          THIS RESTORATION VISION IS LEADING US TO COMPLETE THE PROPERTY TO BE THE HOME OF OUR ORGANIZATION AND NOW THIS IS LEADING US TO WORK WITH THE PRESERVATION LEAGUE TO RESTORE THE COURTS INTO A PLACE OF HEALING FOR SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE MEMBERS OF OUR SOCIETY. 
          THOSE WHO ARE VULNERABLE WORKING TO SAVE VULNERABLE PLACE AND THOSE HEALED SERVE TOGETHER HEAL HISTORIC WOUNDS. 
          PRESERVATION OF LIVES AND WORKING TO PRESERVE AND RESTORE ONE OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE HISTORIC PROPERTIES. 
          I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT THAT SOUNDS LIKE GOOD NEWS TO ME AND FOR ABILENE AND CITIZENS OF ABILENE AND FOR A WORLD THAT IS DESPERATE FOR GOOD NEWS. IF YOU GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE THIS GOOD NEWS I PROMISE THAT WE'LL DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO MAKE THIS GOOD NEW AS REALITY. 
          >> ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, SIR. 
          ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          >> I'M MARC AND I'D LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK. I OWN THE PROPERTY AT 634 SOUTH 11 DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. I HAVE WATCHED THIS BUILDING THROUGH AT LEAST FOUR OWNERS AND I GUESS MY QUESTION TO THE PRESERVATION LEAGUE IS IF THIS PLACE WAS SO IMPORTANT HOW COME IT'S BEEN SO NEGLECTED FOR ALL THESE YEARS? I'VE DONE THE NEHEMIAH THING AND GONE AND PAINTED CHURCHES IN NASHVILLE AND ON THE COAST AND I'VE DEALT WITH TEENAGERS AND MEN SO I'VE DONE THE PHILANTHROPIC THING AND I'VE SAVED SOME PEOPLE'S LIVELIHOODS, BUT WE HAD SOMETHING TO WORK WITH. I'M ALL FOR SAVING WHALES AND ALL THIS STUFF, BUT WHEN ONE IS WASHED UP ON THE BEACH AND IS DEAD, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE. SINCE 1986 I PROBABLY SECURED THAT DOOR A DOZEN TIMES. I'VE CALLED THE CITY. 
          I'VE CALLED THE POLICE. TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THAT BUILDING. THERE'S A TREE THAT'S GONE WAS AT MY REQUEST BECAUSE I TOLD A YOUNG LADY I SAID THAT'S WHERE THE TEENS CRAWL UP IS RIGHT UP THAT TREE. 
          I SHOWED JOSH YESTERDAY THE FENCE THEY PUT UP IN THE FRONT THERE, IN MY OPINION, IS LIPSTICK ON A PIG BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY MADE IT EASIER TO GET INTO.  I CAN GET INSIDE THAT FENCE WITH A SCREWDRIVER IN ABOUT 15 SECONDS NOT INCLUDING ME JUMPING OVER, BUT IT'S EASIER TO GET IN. 
          YOU CAN STILL GO THROUGH THE BACK GATE AND CLIMB OVER ANY TREE AND DROP INSIDE AND DO ALL THE DAMAGE YOU WANT. 
          I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE WHEN I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, IT WAS CONDEMNED AND THE FIRST 
          [00:50:02]
THING I DID WAS SECURE THE BUILDING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU ASKED ME TO DO. THE SAME BOARD HERE THAT I RESPECTED TOLD ME TO SECURE THE PROPERTY AND I DID. 
          IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE KIDS WERE GETTING IN, BUT IT TOOK ME A YEAR AND A HALF TO GET THE BUILDING UP AND RUNNING AND PAY TAXES ON IT. MY BUILDING IS A HISTORIC SITE TOO. PROBABLY THE PLACE THAT SERVICEED THE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET. 
          IT WAS A GAS STATION, A BARBERSHOP, HARDWARE STORE, RESTAURANT. IT WAS ALL THAT STUFF. 
          BUT THOSE DAYS ARE GONE. IT WILL NEVER BE RESTORED. 
          MY BUILDING IS ALL THE BRICK AND HAS A GOOD FLOORING AND NOT ANYTHING LIKE THE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET. I HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH REMODELING HOUSES. 
          THAT'S WHAT I DO. WHEN YOU GET INTO A PROJECT LIKE THIS YOU ALWAYS FIND THINGS YOU DIDN'T PLAN FOR AND RIGHT NOW WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A BUDGET FOR THIS. 
          ALL WE'VE GOT IS A PROMISE AND MR. BLACK WAS HONEST. 
          HE DOESN'T KNOW IF HE CAN RAISE THE MONEY. 
          I HAD TO SUGGEST TO MY SON SOMETHING LIKE THIS. 
          HE DIDN'T LIKE IT, BUT WE HAD TO PUT THE DOG DOWN AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. YOU GUYS KIND OF HAVE A DUTY TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS AND PROTECT THE BUILDING AND THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE DONE. THE BUILDING STILL NEEDS TO BE TORN DOWN BECAUSE THERE'S STILL TRANSIENTS THAT CAN GET IN IT AT ANY GIVEN TIME. THERE'S NO KNOWN BUDGET OR PROMISE AND I'M LOOKING AT THE LAST TRACK RECORD SINCE I'VE BEEN AWARE OF THIS BUILDING, IT'S GONE DOWN AND DOWN AND NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE BUILDING. 
          EVERYBODY HAS HAD A DREAM AND THAT DREAM HAS BEEN BURST BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL AND THE REQUIREMENTS THE CITY WILL HAVE SO MY VOTE IS STILL TO, MY VOICE, I DON'T HAVE A VOTE, BUT MY VOICE IS TO STILL SEE THE BUILDING TORN DOWN, AND IF THE NEHEMIAH PROJECT WANTS TO BUILD A BETTER FACILITY THAT WILL COST MUCH LESS MONEY, THEY COULD DO THAT. 
          AND RIGHT THERE ON THAT PROPERTY AND YOU COULD GET AN EXPANDED PROPER PROPERTY. 
          BUT THERE'S A LOT LESS MONEY THAT COULD BE SPENT IN A BETTER WAY ON THE SAME PROPERTY INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SAVE A PIECE OF SOMETHING THAT IS GONE. IF WE SAVE EVERY BUILDING IN ABILENE, YOU KNOW? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUNCH OF OLD BUILDINGS AND NO MODERN FACILITIES JUST LIKE WE'VE TORN DOWN THE OLD COURTHOUSE OR THE JAIL HOUSE, I SHOULD SAY. 
          IT HAS NOT BEEN USEFUL FOR YEARS AND THEY'RE TEARING IT DOWN NOW. 
          SO THIS IS KIND OF UNDER THE SAME CATEGORY FOR ME. 
          SOMETIMES WE HAVE GOT TO MOVE ON AND REBUILD AND THAT'S WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS TO ME. IT'S JUST TOO EASY TO GET INTO. 
          IT IS A FIRE HAZARD AND THERE'S PLENTY OF WOOD IN THERE AND I DO MY BEST TO WATCH IT AND I SEE EVERYBODY THAT COMES OVER IT. 
          I SAW YOU OVER THERE AND JOSH OVER THERE YESTERDAY. 
          I WATCH IT LIKE A HAWK. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FOUND OUT YESTERDAY AND I WAS NOT AWARE OF IT AND I DON'T THINK IT'S JOSH'S FAULT. I THINK IT SLIPPED BUT THE CRACKS, BUT I WAS NOT AWARE THIS BUILDING WAS CONDEMNED IN 2017. 
          THE LAST TIME I HEARD ABOUT IT PROBABLY IN JUNE WHEN JOSH PUT NOTICE UP. SOMEBODY HAS BEEN PULLING SIGNS OFF THAT BUILDING. THE LAST ONE AT THE LAST MEETING, WHETHER SOMEBODY PULLED IT OFF AND I WENT AND STAPLED IT TO THE BUILDING. IT WAS ABOUT THE MEETING LAST JULY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF A TRANSIENT OR WHO OR IF THEY'RE NOT GETTING PUT ON THERE. 
          THE BUILDING CODE ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE, JOSH SAID STARTED IN DECEMBER. BEFORE THAT I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS NEGLIGENTED OR SOME TRANSIENT OR SOMEBODY WAS PULLING SIGNS OFF, BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN AWARE OF ANY MEETINGS 
          [00:55:01]
EXCEPT THE LAST WEEK AND I DRIVE BY LIKE TEN TIMES A DAY. 
          THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT OR I WOULD BE HERE. THIS IS NOT MY CRITIQUE FOR THE LAST MONTH AND A HALF. I'VE BEEN WATCHING THAT BUILDING FOR 35 YEARS. NO PROGRESS. 
          IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON AND BUILD SOMETHING ELSE ON THE SITE. 
          IT CAN ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING PROBABLY MUCH CHEAPER. 
          PROBABLY MUCH CHEAPER. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMENTS. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION. 
          I GUESS I CAN SAY NOW THE PREVIOUS OWNER, NOT RESTORATION, PRESERVATION SOCIETY, PREVIOUS SOWNER, WAS THERE EVER ANYTHING DONE TO REALLY SECURE THE PROPERTY DURING HIS SIX YEARS OF OWNE OWNERSHIP? 
          >> THE OLDER YOU GET TIME FLY, SO I CAN'T TELL YOU WHICH OWNER PUT SOME OF THE BOARD'S ACROSS THE BACK, BUT I'M HERE IT WAS MR. RANKIN THAT CLEANED UP THE DEBRIS IN THE BACK BECAUSE THAT WAS EASY FOR GUYS TO GET IN THERE AND HIDE. 
          I KNOW HE'S DONE SOME. WITH MY BUILDING IT WAS CONDEMNED. I BOUGHT IT THAT WAY. 
          I HAD TO SECURE THE WINDOWS AROUND THE FRONT TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM THINKING THEY COULD GET IN IN THIS BUILDING THEY'RE STILL NOT SECURED AROUND THE FRONT, SO AS FAR AS DOING MUCH SECURITY, NOT REALLY. THERE'S BEEN SOME. 
          >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 
          >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS 
          FOR THE RECORD. >> ALICIA SMITH, 2036 WOOD WAY. 
          I'M ACTUALLY HERE TO TESTIFY ABOUT THE NEXT CASE. 
          HOWEVER, THERE'S - WHAT IF ISRAEL WOULD HAVE TORN DOWN THE WESTERN WALL? THAT HISTORY, WHY TEAR IT DOWN? I THINK ABILENE HAS A BIG ATTRACTION FOR TOURISM AND SOM SOMEBODY, THIS MIGHT BRING TOURISM. IT'S NOWHERE NEAR THE COMPARISON, BUT WHAT ABOUT 833 OAK STREET. 
          IT WAS A HOLE IN THE GROUND. I MEAN AND THEN TIM SMITH GOT I AND SAID LET'S PUT A BREWERY OVER IT. 
          DOES IT LOOK BETTER. OF COURSE. WHAT ABOUT THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB ON SOUTH AND SECOND? THAT WAS CONDEMNED AND NOW IT'S A PRETTY HOUSE. YOU CAN'T SAY THE OWNER ACROSS THE STREET DOESN'T LIKE IT AND IT'S A NUISANCE TO HIM. 
          I LIVE ON FAIR OAKS, BUT MY NEIGHBOR DOESN'T LIKE GRASS SO HE HAS HEDGES OVER EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF HIS FRONT YARD. 
          I THINK IT LOOKS HIDEOUS, BUT THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION. 
          DOES IT GIVE GROUND COVERAGE? YES. 
          I DON'T - WE HAVE A WHOLE BLOCK THAT WE OWN NOT FAR FROM THIS PROPERTY. AND I HAVE BEEN OVER THERE YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND I HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYBODY TRY TO GET INTO THAT PROPERTY. THAT'S JUST - AND I UNDERSTAND HIS FRUSTRATION BECAUSE IT'S EYESORE AND HE'D LIKE IT DOWN BECAUSE THAT MAKES HIS PROPERTY LOOK BETTER, HOWEVER, I THINK THAT YOU HAVE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WANTING TO COME TOGETHER TO SAVE IT. THERE'S TONS OF MONEY IN ABILENE AND OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE DONATED SOME TO SAVE THIS AND IT AS NOT OFFICIALLY EXCHANGED HANDS. 
          I THINK IT COULD EASILY GET $250,000, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE STUPID TO DEMOLISH IT. I DON'T SEE WHERE GIVING THEM MORE TIME WOULD HURT ANYBODY. I MEAN BECAUSE ABILENE OBVIOUSLY HAS THE ABILITY. LOOK AT, LIKE I SAID, THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB? I MEAN MULTIPLE PLACES THIS BEEN DONE. THAT'S ALL I HALF OF THE SAY. 
          >> ANY QUESTIONS OF MRS. SMITH? THANK YOU. 
          ANYBODY ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS, PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. 
          >> HI I'M JOHN CLARK, 1034 CHERRY AND I LIVE ACROSS THE ALLEY. I'M A RETIRED ABILENE POLICE DEPARTMENT. I WORKED THE STATE AS THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. I'VE BEEN ANSWERING CALLS OVER THERE SINCE I STARTED WITH THEM IN 1995. 
          [01:00:02]
BEEN THROUGH THERE AND I'M LOOKING AT THAT AND I DON'T SEE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO REHABILITATE THAT PROPERTY IN MY OPINION, YOU WOULD BE BETTER SERVED TO RAISE THAT PLACE TO THE GROUND AND BUILD SOMETHING ELSE THERE. 
          I PROBABLY SECURE THAT THE GATE THAT WAS THERE PRIOR TO THAT, I'VE PROBABLY SECURED THAT A DOZEN TIMES. 
          I LIED AT MY HOUSE FOR FOUR YEARS. 
          PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY GETTING IN THERE. AT MY HOUSE FOR FOUR YEARS. PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY GETTING IN TH AT MY HOUSE FOR FOUR YEARS. PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY GETTING IN THERE.V AT MY HOUSE FOR FOUR YEARS. 
          PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY GETTING IN THERE.E AT MY HOUSE FOR FOUR YEARS. PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY GETTING IN THERE.D AT MY HOUSE FOR FOUR YEARS. 
          PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY GETTING IN THERE. 
          I THINK PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO GET IN THERE. 
          WHY? I DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY WILL. 
          IT'S MY OPINION THAT SOMEPLACE TOO FAR GONE TO REHABILITATE AND IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED. 
          THAT'S IT. >> ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, 
          SIR. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE? 
          >> IF I MAY, JUST BECAUSE AGAIN IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP, SO WE HAD A QUESTION AS FAR AS CONDEMNATION DATE. 
          THIS WAS CONDEMNED IN 2017. IT WASN'T A MATTER OF IT SLIPPING THROUGH THE CRACKS, IT SAT ON THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION FOR A WHILE AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT'S WHY CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE FOUNDATION PROGRAM DID NOT GET INVOLVED. 
          AS OF SEPTEMBER 24TH OF TO 19 THE LANDLORD'S COMMISSION DISCUSSED ACTION AND AT THAT POINT TURNED IT OVER TO THE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS TO MAKE A DECISION AND THAT'S WHY YOU KNOW, NO ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN, BECAUSE THEY WERE SITTING ON THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION, BUT THEY DECIDED THEY WERE NOT GOING TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON IT AND THREAT CONDEMNATION PROGRAM TAKE OVER, WHICH IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING MORE MOVEMENT NOW WITH THIS CASE. TO JUST KIND OF TOUCH ON A FEW THINGS BECAUSE IT GETS BROUGHT UP MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          AS MUCH AS QUESTION APPRECIATE THE PROGRESS MADE WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND STUFF LIKE THAT PROGRESS MADE WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND STUFF LIKE THAT PROGRESS MADE WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND STUFF LIKE THAT PROGRESS MADE WITH THE LANDSCAPING AND STUFF LIKE THAT. I WANT TO SAY THIS DOES NOT ADDRESS VIOLATIONS LISTED RIGHT HERE. 
          IT'S NOT A MATTER OF PERSONAL LIKES OR DISLIKES OF HOW A PROPERTY LOOKS. YOU CAN DISLIKE THE WAY A PROPERTY LOOKS ALL DAY LONG, BUT IF THERE'S NO VIOLATIONS, LEGALLY THE CITY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT, BUT IF THERE'S VIOLATIONS EXISTING AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S PERFECTLY GOOD REASONS TO DISLIKE A PROPERTY AND AS WAS EXPRESSED THE BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE FIRE HAZARD WITH THE TRANSIENTS GETTING IN AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A FIRE BEING STARTED IN SIDE. 
          I WANT TO STRESS THIS FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS THE SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS IN THE STRUCTURE. 
          OF>> ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE? MR. BLACK CAN I GET YOU TO STEP BACK TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? TO THIS CASE? MR. BLACK CAN I GET YOU TO STEP BACK TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? TO THIS CASE? MR. BLACK CAN I GET YOU TO STEP BACK TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? TO REDUCE THIS DOWN TO FINANCIAL NUMBERS, THE WORST CASE SCENARIO THAT YOU HAVE MENTIONED IS $80,000 AND THAT WOULD BE JUST THE FACADE STANDING THERE BY ITSELF 
          >> YES, SIR. IN THE PRESERVATION ASSISTANCE, BUT AT LEAST THE LEAST EXPENSIVE. 
          >> HOW MUCH OF THAT 80,000 DOLLARS DO YOU HAVE? 
          >> RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SITTING WAITING FOR THAT PROJECT EARMARKED $56700 AND SOME ODD DOLLARS. 
          >> HOW MUCH? >> $56,000. 
          >> OF THE 80? >> YES. 
          >> THAT'S EARMARKED SPECIFICALLY. 
          THAT'S NOT ATTACHED TO ANY EMERGENCY FUNDS OR ANYTHING WE 
          HAVE SET ASIDE. >> ANY OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE? SEEING NONE ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 17-009 I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. OR A MOTION? 
          >> I BELIEVE THAT THIS BEEN ANOTHER GOOD MEETING OF GOOD INFORMATION AND PURSUANT TO OUR LAST MEETING IN THE WAY THAT IT 
          [01:05:04]
TURNED OUT, THAT WAS A VERY INFORMATIVE MEETING, BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS AG 
          AGAIN. >> OKAY. 
          FOR HOW LONG? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT UNTIL, I THINK, KNOWING THERE'S ACTIVITY BEGINNING WITH A LOT OF CHANGE OF HANDS AND DEMOLITION GOING ON, AND ABATEMENT GOING ON THROUGH THE MONTH OF AUGUST, I'D LIKE TO 
          TABLE FOR IT 60 DAYS. >> CAN WE TABLE THIS MORE THAN 
          THE NEXT MEETING? >> I BELIEVE YOU CAN. 
          >> OKAY. >> I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT. I BELIEVE MR. CRAIG HAS TOLD US IN THE PAST THAT THE MOST THAT A CASE CAN BE TABLED IS UNTIL NEXT MEETING OR NOT MORE THAN 30-DAYS. 
          >> SOMETHING MAY MAY HAVE CHANGED. 
          I THINK IT'S BETTER TO TABLE TO A SPECIFIC MEETING THAN A NUMBER OF DAYS ANYWAY, BUT IF HE HAS LOOKED INTO THAT AND THAT'S WHAT HE SAID IN THE PAST, I WOULD ADVICE YOU TO TABLE IT TO THE 
          NEXT MEETING. >> THAT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          WE CAN ONLY TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          >> THEN WE'LL TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. 
          >> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> MOTION BY MR. SHRADER AND SECOND BY MR. ALRED. CASE NUMBER 17-009 BE TABLED UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? 
          >> IN DUE RESPECT TO MY COLLEAGUES, I THINK THAT'S A WASTE OF TIME. I MEAN, HOW LONG DO WE HAVE TO WAIT? WE HAVE TESTIMONY THAT THIS BEEN EYESORE FOR 20 YEARS. OVER 20 YEARS. 
          WE HAVE CLEAR INFORMATION THAT THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS DONE NOTHING TO SECURE THIS BUILDING. OKAY? WE WERE TOLD AT THE LAST MEETING THAT THEY HAD $30,000 TO SECURE THE PROPERTY. 
          ALL THEY HAVE DONE IS CLEAN UP SOME PROPERTY AND NOW WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT THEY'VE GOTTEN INTO IT AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY EVEN HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO ADEQUATELY SECURE THE BUILDING. 
          OKAY? WE HAVE TESTIMONY THAT THEY CAN STILL GET INTO THE PROPERTY. THE ISSUES FROM THE CITY INSPECTIONS HAVE NOT GONE AWAY. OKAY? SO, I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD CONTINUE TO CONSIDER THIS WHEN ALL WE HAVE IS NO IMPROVEMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WERE TOLD HAS YEAR BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF WHAT HE'LL PLAN TO DO, PLAN TO DO, PLAN TO DO. THE BUILDING IS STILL NOT SECURED, THEY'RE NOT SURE THEY HAVE MONEY TO DO IT AND THIS BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER 20 YEARS. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION THAT IT'S TIME TO PUT THIS BUILDING TO REST? 
          >> I DEEPLY APPRECIATE THE HISTORICAL OF THIS BUILDING AND I DON'T NEED TO GO INTO THAT AGAIN. 
          BUT THE IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY AND THE FACT THAT THIS SETS ON A FORMER, VERY IMPORTANT HIGHWAY. BUT I THINK IT'S TIME TO PUT THIS ISSUE TO REST AND I THINK WE ARE AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY AS A COMMITTEE, IF WE DO NOT HAVE PROPERTY, KEEP IT CONDEMNED AND HAVE IT DEMOLISHED. THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO STILL MAINTAIN MY TABLING, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE NOT HAD INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY STIRRED UP FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THIS AMOUNT OF INTEREST THAT'S GONE MORE OF A STATEWIDE INTEREST BEYOND OUR CITY. IT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE JUST TO HAVE ANOTHER PART OF ABILENE'S HISTORY JUST BE WIPED CLEAN. 
          WE ARE LOOKING AT DEEPER POCKETS GETTING POSITIONED AND MOVED 
          [01:10:03]
AROUND AND WE HAVE INTEREST IN WHAT CAN BE DONE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO THE SEVEN ITEMS THERE, BUT WE CAN TAKE CARE. I SEE THAT THERE ARE INSTRUMENTS TO TAKE CARE OF THE STRUCTURAL HAZARDS DEFINITELY IF YOU JUST GET IT LOOKING MORE LIKE A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IT'S GOING TO BE EXCUSE THE MESS. BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BATTLING ALL THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF IT THAT WE HAVE, THE PEOPLE MOVING INTO PLACE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT. 
          THEY DO HAVE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. 
          IN THE ASPECT OF MAKING IT SECURE, YOU CAN'T KEEP HARDLY EVERYBODY OUT OF SOMETHING IF THEY WANT TO GET INTO IT C. 
          THAT BEING SAID I STILL FAVOR THE INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC THAT I'VE SEEN INVOLVED TO GET IN BEHIND THIS, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS. WHY GET THIS BURR UNDER US RIGHT NOW TO TEAR IT DOWN? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY HEALTH WISE BEING AFFECTED BY IT. WE'VE GOT FAR BIGGER THINGS AFFECTING OUR HEALTH RIGHT NOW. THIS PROPERTY, I ATE AT JAY'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT JUST THE OTHER DAY AND I WAS THINKING AS I LEFT JAY'S, I DROVE AROUND IT AND THERE'S PEOPLE ACTIVITY AND PEOPLE WORKING ON IT. PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I GAVE THEM A WAVE AND JUST DROVE BY BECAUSE THEY WAIVED AT ME. 
          THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE ARE THERE TRYING TO ESTABLISH AND DO SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THAT PROPERTY. 
          MY EXPERTISE IN IS A TEXTURE AND I CAN SEE HOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WOULD RATHER GO WITH IT THAN TO JUST CONTINUE TEARING THINGS DOWN AND LEVELLING PROPERTIES. 
          I DO THINK THAT WHETHER THEY CAN ONLY SAVE THE BRICK FACADE ALONG SOUTH AND 11TH, THAT'S EVEN VIABLE. 
          IF THEY CAN'T SALVAGE ALL THE STUCCO SIDES TO IT AND ACROSS THE BACK, BUT I AM INTRIGUEED TO HEAR THEY PROBABLY CAN. 
          IF THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE BACKSIDE OF ALL OF THAT STUCCO, PULL IT LEVEL, THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF ISSUES TECHNICALLY OVER THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING BEING ON THE PROPERTY LINE. THEY'VE GOT TO DEAL WITH SOME LEGAL THINGS THERE, BUT THERE AGAIN IT'S CONSTRUCTION. 
          ONCE THEY GET UNDER SOME PERMITS AND SOME CONSTRUCTION, THIS THING CAN MOVE ALONG. IT CAN'T MOVE ALONG TYPICAL AS A 36/60/60. IT WON'T DO IT. 
          THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF PROPERTY IN ABILENE, JUST BECAUSE IT DIDN'T GET PUT ON THE CONDEMNATION LIST, IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR AS LONG AS THIS THING HAS PROBABLY. 
          BUT I CAN SEE THE INTEREST THAT WE SEE RIGHT NOW IS FAVORABLE. 
          IT DOESN'T FIT OUR 30/60/60 AND TIE THEM DOWN TO TIME-LINES. 
          YOU CAN'T DO THAT IN THIS KIND OF PROCESS. 
          WE'VE HAD HOTELS OUT EAST HIGHWAY 80 THAT WOULD SELL FOR A DOLLAR, BUT IT HAD ASBESTOS IN IT AND NOBODY COULD TOUCH IT AND IT WOULD COST THE CITY A FORTUNE TO GO INTO ABATEMENT SIDE OF IT. 
          ASBESTOS IS BAD. BUT ASBESTOS CAN BE CONTAINED. 
          AND DOCUMENTED AND FIGURED OUT HOW YOU LEAVE IT THERE AND DO NOT DISTURB IT, BUT RECORD IT TO WHERE WHEN YOU HAVE TO DISTURB 
          [01:15:04]
IT, THERE'S WAYS THAT WE DEAL WITH IT. 
          ASBESTOS IS A BAD THING, BUT THE LITIGATION AND THE WAY IT'S BEEN WATCHED OUT FOR, THEY'VE GOT THE RULE BOOK FOR THAT. 
          THERE ARE SOME UGLY THINGS IN ABILENE. 
          THIS IT'S POTENTIALS TO NOT BE SO UGLY, AND BEING ON THE BANK HEAD HIGHWAY. I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS UNTIL THIS PROJECT CAME ALONG. AND I SEE SOUTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACK ABILENE IS TRYING TO STIR UP SOME THINGS AND THERE ARE MANY INDIVIDUALS BEGINNING TO TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING OUT OF SOME OF THESE AREAS THAN JUST TURNING THEM INTO EMPTY LOTS. 
          AND I SEE OUR RECOURSE TODAY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO FIND TIME-LINES FOR IT THAT FIT OUR TYP TYPICAL. IF WE CAN GIVE THIS GROUP TIME TO GET IT SECURE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP EVERYBODY OUT. SCREWDRIVER MAY OPEN IT UP, BUT THE MORE ACTIVITY THAT YOU HAVE AROUND IT, AND KEEP IT BUZZING, YOU WON'T HAVE PEOPLE GOING INTO IT. 
          MY MOTION IS TO TABLE UNTIL NEXT MEETING. 
          >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> SURE. 
          >> MR. MORRIS WOULD YOU PULL UP THE TIME-LINE OF ALL THE TIMES 
          THIS BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD? >> YES, SIR. 
          >> SO THIS PROPERTY DID NOT BE BECOME, OR COME TO THIS BOARD UNTIL 2017? 
          >> NO, SIR. THIS PROPERTY FIRST CAME TO THE BOARD IN NOVEMBER 6, 2019 AND IT WAS SITTING ON A LANDMARKS COMMISSION AND SEPTEMBER 24TH OF 2019 THE LANDMARK'S DECISION WAS TO TURN IT OVER AND AS YOU CAN SEE, OCTOBER, I MET WITH MR. RANKIN OR CALLED HIM AND HE SAID HE WOULD COME IN AND NEVER SHOWED UP. SO THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT TO 
          THE NOVEMBER MEETING. >> PRIOR TO GOING TO THE LANDMARK'S COMMISSION WAS THIS PROPERTY WITH WHAT WOULD BE THREE PREVIOUS OWNERS? BECAUSE MR. RANKIN WAS THE FOURTH. THE CURRENT OWNER, WELL THE TRANSFER HAS NOT OCCURRED SO MR. RANKIN IS STILL THE TECHNICAL OWNER. THE FOURTH OWNER. 
          DURING ANY OF THE FOUR PREVIOUS OWNERS, IS THERE A HISTORY WITH 
          THIS BOARD? >> NO, SIR. 
          >> THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE JUST NOW DEALING WITH THAT. I THOUGHT IT WAS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION THAT I COULDN'T REMEMBER. 
          >> MR. ALRED? I WANT TO SAY I'M THRILLED THAT SOMEBODY HAS STEPPED UP AND IS WILLING TO TAKE INITIATIVE TO REBUILD THIS BUILDING. I WAS IN GERMANY A FEW YEARS AGO AND I LOOKED AT THOSE OLD BUILDINGS AND THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT A BUILDING UNLESS IT WAS 500 YEARS OLD. 
          IT WAS STILL VERY USABLE. THEY WERE USING THEM AND I'M JUST REALLY PROUD THAT SOMEONE IN ABILENE, TEXAS IS TAKING STEPS TO GO IN AND TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO RAISE THE MONEY AND - IT TAKES A WHILE TO GET IT DONE, BUT I'M REALLY PROUD THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT AND I HOPE THAT IT COMES OUT SOON IN A VERY 
          FAVORABLE WAY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON THE FLOOR SO WE NEED A ROLL CALL. 
          >> IF I COULD JUST ADD, SHOULD THIS BOARD DECIDE TO TABLE, IF THERE'S ANYWAY WE CAN HAVE CONTINGENCY TO ALLOW US TO GO INSIDE AND TAKE MORE IN DEPTH PHOTOS OF THE CONDITION. 
          I KNOW THAT HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED MUCH BEFORE THE BOARD OTHER THAN THE TWO PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR FLOOR ROTTING AND ALSO, THIS PLAN OF ACTION WAS EXPIREED SO THE LAST ONE WAS SEPTEMBER 
          [01:20:04]
AND THEY'RE ONLY GOOD FOR 90 DAYS AND WE'VE NOT SEEN A PLAN OF ACTION SINCE THEN OTHER THAN PROBABILITIES OR POSSIBILITIES SO WE CAN JUST HAVE A PLAN OF ACTION SO THAT WAY MORE ACCOUNTABILITY CAN BE HELD AGAINST WHOEVER DOES TAKE OWNERSHIP AND MORE PROMPTING OTHERWISE, THE CONCERN FOR THE CITY, AND THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC IS JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE GOING ON UNTIL WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PLAN OF ACTION IN PLACE TO WHERE WE CAN HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR NOT FOLLOWING 
          THROUGH. >> SO YOUR REQUEST IS THAT THEY 
          HAVE A PLAN OF ANY ACTION? >> YES. 
          WE HAVE NOT HAD A PLAN OF ACTION FROM ANYBODY SINCE DECEMBER. 
          NOW WE'VE HAD UPDATES AND YOU KNOW THEIR INTENTIONS AND QUOTES FROM AML, BUT NOTHING HAS REALLY FOLLOWED THROUGH AND AS WAS PREVIOUSLY STATED, WE WERE EXPECTING A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP SO BE IN HAND ALREADY, HOWEVER THAT'S NOT CASE SO PERSONALLY I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THIS TO DRAG OUT MORE SO IF WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THIS IS DONE SHOULD YOU DECIDE TO TABLE IT, OTHERWISE, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION REMAINS THE SAME TO FIND IT PUBLIC NUISANCE AND TO ORDER 
          DEMOLITION. >> IF WE REQUEST A PLAN OF ACTION THEN THEY PROVIDE ONE WITHIN 30-DAYS WE WON'T SEE 
          THIS, SO I >> WE WOULD STILL SEE IT BECAUSE IT WAS TABLED AND WE HAVE TO PRESENT IT AGAIN. 
          >> WE CAN'T TABLE IT. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND ON THE TABLE OR TO TABLE IT, AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE SOME OTHER ACTION, THEN I DON'T THINK TABLING THE ACTION IS REALLY APPROPRIATE. THAT BECOMES TOO CONFUSING. 
          >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. SO I UNDERSTAND AT THIS POINT WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE WE JUST FEEL THAT RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A STANCE. 
          >> YOU MENTIONED YOU WOULD LIKE PERMISSION TO GET INSIDE AND 
          TAKE PICTURE? >> YES. 
          IF THAT'S NOT RIDER, THEN I CAN ALWAYS - 
          >> HAVE YOU BEEN REFUSEED? >> NO, SIR. 
          BUT I KNOW THAT WITH ALL THE REPAIRING THEY'VE BEEN DOING AND THERE'S MORE MENTIONED ABOUT THE COVID EXPOSURE AND SHE HIGHLY SUGGESTED THAT WE KEEP OUR DISTANCE SO WE'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION AND MAKING SURE WE'RE NOT THERE AT THE SAME TIME, BUT IF WE COULD GET UPDATED PHOTO, SO I CAN PRESENT IT AT THE NEXT MEETING THIS IS TABLED. 
          >> LET ME ADD TO OUR DISCUSSION HERE BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST THAT WE HAVE, ALMOST EVERYBODY INVOLVED IS HEARING THIS, THESE TESTIMONIES. THIS BOARD IS USING AS A TOOL, THE PROCESS OF TABLING. THAT'S AS SIMPLE AS IT IS. 
          YOU, AS CITY AND STAFF AND WORKING WITH THE PUBLIC, IN WHATEVER CAPACITY, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO. 
          IN MY OPINION, I'M NOT SPEAKING OUT OF TURN, WE'RE NOT RESTRAINING ANY PROGRESS TO BE MADE. 
          AND I THINK OUT OF WHAT WE'RE HEARING AND OUT OF TESTIMONIES FOR AND AGAINST THIS PRODUCT OF THIS PROJECT. 
          I THINK THE OWNER WILL BE CATCHING A CLUE THAT THEY'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHINGS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THAT'S ALL IN HERE TODAY. THIS BOARD IS SIMPLY USING THE TOOL THATETH HAS. YOU KNOW I CAN'T ESTABLISH OR FIGURE OUT COST, TIME LINE, ANY OF THAT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IN 30-DAYS, BUT WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO US, EVERYBODY'S FINDING OUT. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW, THAN TO STOP 
          AND TEAR IT DOWN. >> OKAY. 
          >> SORRY, IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT. 
          MY COMMENT WASN'T PER SE SAYING BECAUSE OF THE BOARD'S TABLING THAT WE WERE RESTRAINED FROM PROGRESS. 
          THE LACK OF PROGRESS COMES FROM NOT HAVING VALID OWNERSHIP AND BEING ABLE TO PULL PERMITS AND WE DON'T DOT DO THAT WITHOUT A 
          [01:25:02]
COST ESTIMATE. THAT'S BEEN THE RESTRAINT. 
          NOT BECAUSE OF THE BOARD. IT SO WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP. 
          THAT'S WHY WE HAVE MADE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT EVERY MEETING. 
          DESPITE COMMUNICATION AND THE POSSIBILITIES AND THE MAN'S THAT WERE SUBMITTED, AGAIN THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE OTHER THAN A FEW 
          LANDSCAPING AND COSMETIC THINGS. >> WE NEED A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? 
          >> DOCTOR PARIS? >> THIS IS THE ROLL CALL FOR THE 
          TABLING, CORRECT? >> YES. 
          >> NO. >> MR. ALRED? 
          >> YES. >> MR. MCCOLLUM? 
          >> NO. >> MR. TURNER? 
          >> YES. >> MR. SHRADER? 
          >> YES. >> MR. BEARD? 
          >> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES. 
          >> THANK YOU. NEXT CASE PLEASE? 
          [C. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 19-004517: 1050 Chestnut St. (NORTHINGTON. BLOCK A, LOT SM) £180). Owner: Smith, Alton • Public Hearing]
          >> SO THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3C, CASE 19-004517 LOCATION AT 1050 CHESTNUT STREET. THE COUNTY RECORDS SHOW ALRIGHT ON THE SMITH TO BE THE OWNER AND SECRETARY OF STATE HAS NO RECORD FOR THIS NAME FOUND. THE TAX RECORD FOR THE MUNICIPALITY ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE SEARCH REVEALS MR. SMITH TO BE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THIS WAS THE PUBLIC NOTICE POSTED ON THE STRUCTURE FOR TODAY'S MEETING. 
          THIS MEETING WAS LAST PRESENTED TO THE BOARD IN MARCH. 
          THE PHOTOS ON THE LEFT WERE PRESENTED IN THE MEETING AND THE PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT ARE AS OF JULY 13TH. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WAS SOME PAINTING DONE ON THE OUTSIDE AND ALMOST ON THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. IT JUST CUTS OFF THERE TOWARDS THE END. THERE'S THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE WEST SIDE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THE EXTERIOR STRUCTURE ON THE LEFT WERE PRESENT AT THE LAST MEETING AND THOSE HAVE BEEN REPAIRED SINCE JULY. THE NORTH INTERIOR, THE FIRE DAMAGE EXISTS, BUT THIS IS THE SAME ROOM TAKEN FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE. THE ANGLE ON THE RIGHT WAS TAKEN THROUGH THE WINDOW. THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, ANTERIOR DAMAGE STILL EXISTING FROM THE FIRE. 
          NORTH ANTERIOR, INSTRUCTION WALL ISSUES. 
          NORTH IN T INTERIOR. YOU CAN SEE THE MOST RECENT PHOTO THAT THERE'S CHARRING ON THE WALL FROM THE FIRE DAMAGE. 
          AND SOME MORE INTERIOR ISSUES FROM FIRE DAMAGE. 
          JULY 13TH, THE MOST RECENT ON THE RIGHT. 
          SO THE TIMELINE OF ADVANTAGES THIS IS ANOTHER EXTENSIVE TIME-LINE. I'LL BRIEF OVER A FEW THINGS. 
          IN NOVEMBER, THIS PROPERTY WAS CONDEMNED SEPTEMBER 16TH, HOWEVER DUE TO DIFFICULTIES AND GETTING MR. SMITH TO PULL PERMIT THESE WERE NOT PULLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 18TH, 2019 AND OFFICIALLY PULLED ON DECEMBER FOURTH AND UPDATED REBUTTAL WAS TAKE THEN JANUARY. NO ROUGH IN IS HAVE BEEN SCHEDULED UP UNTIL FEBRUARY FIFTH, 2020. 
          PLUMBING ROUGH IN HAD PASSED AND THE BOARD ORDERED OWNER TO REPAIR AND ALL ROUGH ENDS HAD TO COMPLETED IN 60 DAYS AND THEN ALL FINALS BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERMITS. 
          MAY 4RTH A 60 DAY DEADLINE PASSED AND IT WAS NOT COMPLIANT. 
          ON JULY 13TH, 2020 THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS LOOKED AT THE PLUMBING AND WE SENT THEM NOTICE FOR TODAY'S MEETING ON JULY 15TH. I DID CHECK THIS MORNING AND AS OF TODAY THERE'S NO SCHEDULED INSPECTIONS OR ANYTHING. 
          [01:30:01]
SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FIND HAS THE THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE AND THE REPAIRING OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. 
          THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST. INADEQUATE SANITATION. 
          NUISANCE. HAZARDOUS PLUMBING AND WIRING AND WEATHER PROTECTION. THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH WITHIN 30-DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMO 
          DEMOLISH. >> ARE THERE ANY CURRENT PERMITS 
          ON THIS OR HAVE THEY EXPIRED? >> THE PERMITS ARE CURRENTLY ACTIVE, BUT IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE PREVIOUS ORDER AND IT'S WELL PAST THE DEADLINE. THE ONLY INSPECTION WAS THE ROUGH END BACK IN FEBRUARY. THE PLUMBING ROUGH IN. 
          >> LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS IT APPEARS THERE HAS NOT BEEN MUCH DONE SINCE THE PREVIOUS PHOTOGRAPHS. 
          LOOKS LIKE PAINTING AND SOME WORK UNDER ONE OF THE AWNINGS THERE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> WE TOOK THOSE AND WE DISCUSSED IT AND DECIDED IT WAS 
          NEEDING TO BE PRESENTED AGAIN. >> ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. ANYONE WISHING TO PEAK SPEAK TO THE CASE I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND 
          ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? >> WOOD WAY. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY LYSOL OR HAND SANITIZER BECAUSE MULTIPLE COVID PEOPLE WERE IN THAT ORGANIZATION THAT WERE TOUCHING THIS. 
          I'M JUST SAYING. OKAY. 
          THIS HOUSE IS A QUADRAPLEX. IT'S NOT A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, BUT A MULTI-UNIT QUADRAPLEX 2-STORY. 
          YOU DON'T SEE ANY WORK ON THE INSIDE BECAUSE WE'RE QUICK AND HAVE A TEAM OF WORKERS THAT CAN DO IT, BUT I'M NOT A LICENSED ELECTRICIAN. BUT THE GUY WE PAID TO DO IT GOT THE CONTRACTOR TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE NEW HOMES SO HE'S PUT THAT'S A HIS FIRST PRIORITY. I TALKED TO HIM IN JULY AROUND JULY 15TH. I SAID I WANT THIS DONE BEFORE I COME UP HERE AND HE STARTED TALKING ABOUT DRINKING AND STORIES AND I COULDN'T GET ANYTHING SO I'M ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR A NEW ELECTRICAL PERSON. MOST PEOPLE ARE TIED UP. 
          THERE'S BACKLOG ON COVID 19. WE HAVE THE MONEY OVER 500,000 DOLLARS SITTING IN THE BANK AND EVERYTHING WE HAVE AND NOT A SINGLE MORTGAGE SO WE HAVE PRETTY DEEP POCKET BUT I'M NOT JUST GOING TO BLOW MONEY IF YA'LL COULD SUGGEST SOMEBODY THAT COULD DO IT? THEN I'M ALL WILLING. 
          MY CELL PHONE NUMBER IS ON PAGE SIX OF EVERY LEASE I SIGN DOWN AT THE BOTTOM ON CHAPTER 17. AND ON THE WEBSITE ABILENE INVESTMENTS.COM IF YOU GO TO ALICIA IT WILL PULL UP MY CELL PHONE NUMBER. HE HAS NEVER CALLED ME. 
          NOT ONCE. I MONITOR MY HUSBAND'S PHONE BECAUSE HE'S NOT TECH SAVVY AND I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN A MESSAGE FROM HIM. THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THE OTHER ONE WAS IN 2019. THE OTHER ONE, THIS NOT BEEN A YEAR AND YA'LL ARE VOTING. YA'LL'S CONDEMNATION LIST THERE'S HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN ON THERE FOR YEARS. 
          THERE'S ONE I TRIED TO BUY. THE LADY'S IN JAIL. 
          I CAN'T GET A HOLD OF HER AND YA'LL NEVER EVEN SEEN IT. 
          AND IT'S LIKE YOU PICK AND CHOOSE ON WHO TO BRING UP HERE. 
          AND I JUST FEEL THAT WE'RE TARGETED. 
          WE HAVE ALL THE VALID PERMITS AND I'M NOT AN UNREASONABLE PERSON. I HELP PEOPLE OUT ALL THE TIME AND I FEEL THAT WE'RE TARGETED. I'LL BET YOU 100 DOLLAR BILL IF YOU LOOK UP THE NEXT TWO THEY WERE BEFORE 2019. 
          [01:35:11]
WE'RE WORKING. I MEAN WE HAVE A HISTORY WITH WORKING ON HOUSES AND NEVER ONCE HAVE I FAILED FINISH ONE. 
          I HAVEN'T YET PAID, BUT YOU WANT $15,000 ON PENALTIES ON PAST HOUSES THAT YOU HAVE BAD INFORMATION ON, WHERE SOMEBODY SAID IT WAS 90% DONE AND THEN AT THE NEXT MEETING THEY SAID 40 PERCENT AND HAVE IT IN WRITING THAT, IT IS CORRECT. 
          BECAUSE I DIDN'T CERTIFY THE EVIDENCE THE COUNTY KICKED IT OUT, SO I HAVE TO GO BACK AND CERTIFY THE EVIDENCE. 
          I MEAN I'M NOT - IDEAL WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE NOW. 
          I KNOW THE PERSON THAT WAS IN HERE EARLIER. 
          IDEAL WITH A LOT OF NON-PROFITS AND PEOPLE KNOW I'M NOT UNREASONABLE. ALRIGHT ON THE HAS THIS REPUTATION AND PEOPLE THINK HE'S UNREASONABLE. 
          EVERYONE KNOWS THIS IS NOT. HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE PUSHED AROUND. SOMETIMES THE COMMUNICATIONS IS DIFFERENT. WHERE YA'LL ARE SAYING THAT IT'S UNREASONABLE, I MEAN IT'S NOT FAULTY BY THE PROTECTION. 
          THE VOOF PRACTICALLY BRAND NEW SO FIVE AND SEVEN CAN BE KNOCKED OFF AND THE NUISANCE, DALLAS VERSES STUART I DON'T SEE THAT. 
          THE INSIDE NEEDS TO BE COVERED UP. 
          I'M KIND OF HEATED I FEEL TARGETED AND THAT THIS IS JUST - I CAN'T HELP THE ELECTRICAL PERSON. 
          I PAID THE GUY. I CANNOT HELP THAT HE HAD A CONTRACTOR FOR BRAND NEW HOUSES AND DECIDED NOT TO DO IT. 
          I CAN'T HELP IT. I'M HONEST TO GOD HAVE TALKED TO OTHER ELECTRICIANS AND I'M TRYING. 
          I JUST NEED MORE TIME. >> HOW MUCH TIME? 
          >> 30-DAYS. >> OKAY. 
          SO YOU WOULD HAVE WHAT? >> THE ELECTRICAL IS FINAL IN 30-DAYS AND THEN WE CAN DO SHEET ROCK AND FINISH IT UP AND IT LOOKS LIKE A WHOLE DIFFERENT HOUSE, BUT THIS IS A MULTI-IT CAN'T FIT IN A 30/60/90 BECAUSE IT'S NOT SINGLE DWELLING, BUT A 
          MULTI-UNIT. >> MRS. SMITH YOU'VE BEEN HERE MANY TIME AND YOU KNOW HOW THIS GAME IS PLAYED. 
          THIS IS YOUR BUSINESS. >> YES, SIR. 
          >> WE'RE NOT HERE ADVISE YOU ON WHAT ELECTRICIAN TO HIRE. 
          THAT'S YOUR BUSINESS. >> I THOUGHT MAYBE. 
          >> WELL IF YOU CAN'T GET AN ELE ELECTRICIAN, GET SOMEBODY ELSE. THIS IS YOUR BUSINESS. 
          SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR 30-DAY? >> YES, SIR. AND I'LL HAVE A 
          FINAL WITHIN 30-DAY? >> FINAL INSPECTION? 
          >> I'LL HAVE THE ROUGH IN ON THE ELECTRICAL AND THEN I'LL START COVERING UP AND SHEET ROCK AND STUFF. 
          WE HAVE FIVE GUYS THAT ARE PRETTY QUICK AND ONCE I CAN GET THE ELECTRICAL, I THINK THEY CAN COME IN AND I THINK THEN IN TWO WEEKS I COULD HAVE THE STRUCTURAL AND STUFF. 
          I HAVE SOME VANITIES BOUGHT. I HAVE OTHER STUFF BOUGHT. 
          I'M TRYING TO REMODEL SO IT LOOKS NICER AND IS NOT JUST 
          ADEQUATE. >> HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE YOU TO COMPLETELY GET IT AOUT OF WHETHR IT WILL BE QUALIFIED. 
          >> I WOULD SAY 60 DAYS. >> I REMEMBER WHEN YA'LL CAME IN SEPTEMBER. AND YA'LL TOLD US THAT YA'LL 
          COULD COMPLY WITH THE 30/60. >> IT WAS ONLY CONDEMNED JUST EARLIER LAST YEAR. LET'S SEE. 
          INITIAL CONDEMNATION NOTIFIED SEPTEMBER 16TH AND PLAN OF ACTION. UTILITIES SHUT OFF. 
          THE FIRST TIME IT APPEARED HERE WAS, LET'S SEE. 
          A NOTICE ON DECEMBER 4TH. >> YOU PULLED PERMITS ON NOVEMBER 18TH. ANYWAY I REMEMBER WE SPOKE WITH YA'LL AND YA'LL ASSURED US AT THAT TIME THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM FOR YOUR SCHEDULE AND TIME-LINE. 
          >> WELL I DIDN'T KNOW I WOULD BE HELD UP ON ELECTRICAL. 
          WE CAN'T DO OUR OWN WIRING AND LIKE I SAID, THAT'S JUST AND ALRIGHT ON THE JUST GOT OUT OF THE HOSPITAL AND I HAVE THREE SMALL KIDS, I'M ACTIVELY TRYING TO FIND AN ELECTRICAL PERSON AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S HELD IT UP. 
          AS SOON AS THE ELECTRICAL COMES I CAN GET THE ROUGH IN AND HAVE 
          [01:40:07]
          EVERYTHING IN PLACE. >> I WAS JUST MAKING REFERENCE THAT YOU SAID YOU COULD DO THAT WHEN YA'LL FIRST SPOKE TO US. 
          THAT TIME-LINE IS NEARLY NINE MONTHS NOW. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT LIKE I SAID, I FEEL THIS IS A MULTI UNIT 2-STORY. IT SNOS AT SINGLE DWELLING. 
          THE REGULAR TIME-LINE I THINK SHOULD BE EXTENDED FOR THIS PROPERTY AND THIS IS THE ONLY ONE YOU'VE HEARD TODAY THAT'S LESS THAN A-YEAR-OLD ON THE CONDEMNATION LIST. 
          >> WE TAKE THEM AS STAFF BRINGS THEM. 
          WE'RE NOT SINGLING YOU OUT. THIS IS TOTALLY THE CITY OF 
          ABILENE'S JOB. >> WELL I THINK FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT AND LEGALITY I WOULD THINK IF YOU HAD AN INDEPENDENT PERSON THAT DID THE CONDEMNATION THAT'S NOT TIED TO THE CITY? ALSO, I WOULD SAY THAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE DONE THE SAME WAY. 
          >> WE'RE A CITY BOARD THAT VOLUNTEERS, MA'AM AND WE HAVE NO 
          CONTROL. >> IT'S NOT AGAINST YOU AND I'M NOT SAYING, YA'LL, I'M TALKING ABOUT LIKE WHERE - ANYWAY'S 
          SORRY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MRS. SMITH? THANK YOU MRS. SMT I SMITH. 
          ANYBODY WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. I'LL CLOSE TO HEARING ON 19-004517. AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. AND A MOTION. 
          >> I JUST WANT TO TOUCH BASE ON A COUPLE OF MRS. SMITH'S CONCERNS AND I APPRECIATE HER ADDRESSING THEM. 
          AS FAR AS 30/60/90 THERE SEEMS TO BE A MISUNDERSTANDING. 
          IT'S REALLY NOT THAT. IT'S MORE SOMETHING THAT GIVES YOU 30-DAYS TO PULL PERMITS AND 60 DAYS TO COMPLETE ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS. ONCE ALL THE INSPECTIONS ARE COMPLETED WHETHER ON THE 60 DAY OR BEFORE THOSE PERMITS AUTOMATICALLY EXTEND. AS LONG AS YOU ARE MAKING PROGRESS YOU HAVE MORE THAN 90 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. 
          IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE FORCING THEM TO GET IT DONE IN 90 DAYS. 
          ALSO, I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION, BUT IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION TO BE CONTACTING THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND LETTING THEM KNOW WHEN THEIR INSPECTIONS ARE DUE. THAT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTORERS. THEY'RE SUPPOSE TO BE IN COMMUNICATION WITH BUILDING INSPECTORS AT ALL TIMES. 
          AS FAR AS THE ELECTRICIAN THERE WAS A POINT IN TIME WHEN I TOOK THOSE PHOTOS OF THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE, I WAS TOLD BY, I BELIEVE ONE OF MR. SMITH'S TENANTS THAT LIVES NEXT DOOR THAT HE WAS THE ONE COMPLETING THE WORK WHICH IS WHAT PROMPTED THAT PHONE CALL TO MR. ORTEGA ON JANUARY 14TH TO CONFIRM HE WAS THE ONE DOING WORK ON THE STRUCTURE AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD SPEAK TO ALRIGHT ON THE OR MR. SMITH AND INFORMED HIM HE NEEDED TO FINISH THE WORK AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE'S NO ELECTRICAL ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS PASSED AND THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED US TO BRING IT TO HE MARCH MEETING AND AT THAT TIME THEY SAID THEY HAD ALL THE ROUGH IN IS DONE IN 60 DAYS AND THEY WEREN'T. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. 
          >> MOTION FOR DISCUSSION? SHE'S REQUESTED 60 DAYS. 
          30 FOR THE ROUGH IN AND ANOTHER 30 TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. 
          >> SO MOVED. I MOVE THAT WE GO WITH THE 30, 
          30. >> MOTION BY MR. ALRED THAT WE GRANT 30 TODAYS TO COMPLETE ALL ROUGH IN INSPECTIONS AND THAT IS DONE AN ADDITIONAL 30-DAYS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT? 
          >> YES. >> IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> I SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. TURNER. 
          ROLL CALL PLEASE? >> DOCTOR PARIS? 
          >> AYE. >> MR. ALRED? 
          [01:45:02]
          >> YES. >> MR. MCCOLLUM? 
          >> YES. >> MR. TURNER? 
          >> YES. >> MR. SHRADER? 
          >> YES. >> MR. BEARD? 
          >> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES. 
          >> GOOD LUCK, MRS. SMITH. IS EVERYBODY OKAY? WE NEED A 
          BREAK? >> YES. 
          >> I'LL RECONVENE THE AUGUST FIFTH, 2020 ABILENE BOARD OF BUILDING STANDARDS TO ORDER. NEXT CASE IS 20-00638. 
          [D. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 20-000638: 1241 Locust St. (OT ABILENE BLK 208 WATSON & RUSSELL 1-A, LOT 15). Owner: Ortiz, Precilla Ann & Zarate Dominic Aaron • Public Hearing]
          >> YES, ITEM 3-D, CASE 20-000638 LOCATED 1241 LOCUST STREET. 
          LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT WARRANTY DEED ORTIZ TO BE THE OWNERS AND SHOWS OWNERS TO BE ORTIZ PURSUANT. 
          SECRETARY OF STATE NO RECORDS OF THIS NAME FOUND. 
          UTILITY RECORDS SHOW INACTIVE SINCE MAY 20TH OF 2019. 
          THE SEARCH REVEALS PURSUANT ANNE ORTIZ AND TO BE THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS A, THERE'S TWO STRUCTURES ON THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS A NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED ON BOTH STRUCTURES. THIS IS THE MAIN STRUCTURE. 
          FRONT WEST SIDE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. 
          AND THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE AND YOU CAN SEE THE OPEN ELECTRICAL BOX AND THE LOOSE WIRES THERE. 
          THIS IS THE EAST SIDE. THERE'S ISSUES THROUGHOUT DIFFERENT TYPES OF MATERIALS. THE ROOF IS IN BAD SHAPE. 
          THERE'S THE SOUTH END OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE OF THE REAR. 
          THERE'S THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          SOME OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE. SOME STRUCTURAL ISSUES GOING ON THERE AND WE HAVE MATERIAL PLUMBING ISSUES. 
          COMPLETE PLUMBING THERE ON THE LEFT YOU SEE THE TOILET. 
          SOME MATERIAL ELECTRICAL ISSUES IN THE MAIN STRUCTURE. 
          AND THIS IS THE FRONT WEST SIDE OF THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE. 
          THERE'S THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE. 
          OPEN METER BOX. I WOULD LIKE TO STATE AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION WHEN WE DID THIS, THERE WAS AN ELECTRICAL CORD RUNNING FROM THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE TO THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE OR PROPERTY. AND WE DID ADDRESS WITH THOSE OWNERS AND TOLD THEM THEY CANNOT RUN ELECTRICITY LIKE THAT. 
          THAT'S THE EAST SIDE REAR SECONDARY STRUCTURE AND THE SOUTHSIDE OF THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE. 
          HERE'S SOME EXTERIOR ELECTRICAL ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE. 
          LOOSE WIRES. AND THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THE SIGNATURE STRUCTURE. THERE'S A LOT OF ELECTRICAL ISSUES. IT APPEARED THEY WERE TRYING TO PERFORM SOME WIRING AND IT'S INCOMPLETE, OF COURSE. 
          WHEN WE DID RESEARCH THERE WERE NO PERMITS PULLED FOR THIS PROJECT. AGAIN THE INTERIOR STRUCTURAL ISSUES. INSIDE SECONDARY STRUCTUE. 
          THE TIME-LINE OF EVENTS. THIS WAS PART OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SWEEP. ON THE DAY WE INSPECTED WE HAD AN ALTERCATION WITH AN INDIVIDUAL CLAIMING TO BE THE OWNER AND HE DID ADDRESS HIS DISLIKE OF US CONDEMNING IT AND MADE THREATS OF ANYBODY TEARING DOWN HIS PROPERTY ONLY TO CONFIRM HE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          I DID EXPLAIN WHAT HE SHOULD DO SHOULD HE BECOME LEGAL OWNER. 
          ON MARCH 11TH THE PROPERTY WAS OFFICIALLY CONDEMNED AND THEN ON THE 12TH WE SENT NOTICE TO THE OWNER. 
          ON JUNE 23RD I RECEIVED A PHONE CALL STATING HE WAS GOING ON THE MEET ME TO DISCUSS HIS PLANS WITH THE PROPERTY AND HE SAID HE WOULD BRING THE INDIVIDUAL WHO IS POTENTIALLY BUYING THE PROPERTY SO HEAR WHAT WE HAD TO SAY AND HE DID MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT ANY REPAIRS BECAUSE OF COVID WERE DELAYING HIM. 
          ON JULY SECOND. HE DID NOT SHOW UP TO MEET WITH ME AND SO ON THE 15TH WE MAILED POSTED NOTICE OF TODAY'S MEETING 
          [01:50:05]
AND THAT'S WHY IT IS HERE TODAY AND CHECKED IN THIS MORNING AND THERE'S STILL NO CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP OR PERMITS OR NEGLECT PULLED. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY AS A HAZARD AND REPAIR WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. PLUMBING AND FAULTY AND THE OWNERS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR ORDER TWO DISTRICT COURT OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. CAN YOU GO BACK? I GUESS MY QUESTION IS I GUESS THIS IS A COUPLE OF MONTHS OLD? HAVE YOU DECIDED THIS IS TOO FAR GONE TO START THE INITIAL 
          REQUEST? >> WE SENT THEM A REQUEST THE DAY OFF THE PROPERTY WAS CONDEMN AND FROM MARCH TO JUNE THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN UNTIL HE CALLED ME BY PHONE AND SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO COME IN AND MEET WITH ME ON JULY 2 AND HE NEVER SHOWED UP AND AGAIN ANYTIME WE SEND THAT LETTER OUT WE RECEIVE NO RESPONSE FROM THE OWNER AND WE BRING IT BEFORE YOU. 
          HAD HE SHOWN UP ON JULY 2ND THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY THAT MR. LITTLE JOHN AND US, WE WOULD HAVE SPOKE WITH THEM AND MAYBE GAVE THEM A CHANCE TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF ACTION, BUT HE NEVER SHOWED INTENTIONS TO COME IN BY BASICALLY NOT SHOWING UP. 
          >> WHO WAS THE INDIVIDUAL THAT APPROACHED THE CODE OFFICER WITH 
          VERBAL THREAT? >> I DID NOT, I WROTE THIS NAME DOWN AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT PUTTING IT IN HERE. 
          THE CITY MARSHAL DID GET HIS INFORMATION. 
          HE WAS THERE ON HAND. VERY ADAMANT SAYING THAT THE CITY WAS NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO HIS PROPERTY THAT 
          WAS NOT EVEN HIS. >> IT WAS OWNER? 
          >> NO. IT WAS SOMEBODY SAYING IT WAS HIS PROPERTY AND LATER WE CONFIRMED HE WAS NOT EVEN THE 
          OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. >> COULD I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT - THIS IS I DON'T REMEMBER HOW LONG I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THE TERM COMMUNITY SWEEP 
          THAT I REMEMBER. >> SO A COMMUNITY SWEEP IS WHEN CODE COMPLIANCE TEAM GOES OUT AND DOUSE SWEEP OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO FIND ANY VIOLATIONS. 
          ON THIS DATE WE TARGETED A CERTAIN AREA BECAUSE CODE OFFICERS BRING TO IT OUR THE TENSION AS FAR AS CODE VIOLATION AND WE GO OUT AND I DENT BY THE VIOLATIONS AND THIS PROPERTY WAS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL CONDEMNATION. 
          >> JUST A QUICK POINT OF INFORMATION, HOW OFTEN DO YOU DO 
          THIS? >> THE VARIES. 
          DEPENDS ON OUR CASELOAD. FOR EXAMPLE THIS BEING HIGH GRASS AND WEED SEASON WE HAVE TO PUT OFF THE SWEEPS. 
          >> IS THAT THE WAY THE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT DEALS WITH THE QUESTION FROM THE PREVIOUS OW OWNER, THAT HAD DO WITH WELL THERE'S ALL SORTS OF PROPERTES IN TOWN THAT ARE IN WORSE SHAPE THAN THIS ONE SO THAT'S ONE OF THE WAYS YOUR DEPARTMENT DEALS WITH ACTUALLY REACHING OUT TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT MAYBE YOU HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS ABOUT, BUT THAT YOU ARE SEEKING TO SEE IF THERE ARE PROPERTIES OUT THERE THAT HAVEN'T YET BEEN IDENTIFIED? 
          >> ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S JUST ONE RESOURCE THAT WE USE AS A COMMUNITY SWEEPS AND WE ALSO RECEIVE THE COMPLAINTS OF ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE THE SUBSTANDARD AND WE ALSO ARE PROACTIVE IN GOING OUT THERE LOOKING FOR IT. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20000638. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR 
          THE RECORD? >> SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE NUMBER 220-000638 AND OPEN THE FLOOR 
          [01:55:04]
          FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION. >> THIS IS ALSO THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THE TERM, COMMUNITY SWEEP. 
          FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN THIS. AS FAR AS I KNOW THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE SEEN A CASE THE FIRST TIME WITHOUT THE 30/60/60 RECOMMENDATION. I'M NOT IMPLYING THAT'S BAD, BUT THIS IS DEPARTURE FROM THAT. I GUESS SINCE THE OWNER HAS HAD 
          SOME INPUT INTO THIS SO FAR. >> COULD WE SEE THE PICTURES ONE 
          MORE TIME. >> YES. 
          >> IT HAS FAILED RESPOND. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO START 
          FROM THE BEGINNING? >> NO. 
          >> TWO STRUCTURES. THAT'S THE MAIN. 
          THESE FOR ENTIRE EXTERIOR. THAT'S THE WEST SIDE. 
          NORTH SIDE, EAST SIDE AND THE REAR SOUTHSIDE. 
          AND INSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE YOU HAVE SEVERE STRUCTURAL ISSUES GOING ON. MISSING CEILINGS AND INCOMPLETE WALLS AND INTERIOR PLUMBING. THIS IS ALL JUST IN THE MAIN 
          STRUCTURE. >> WHETHER WERE THE UTILITIES 
          LOOKED UP IN THIS ONE? >> NO, SIR. 
          THERE WAS NO ELECTRICAL. I BELIEVE THERE WAS WATER STILL ON THERE. IT STATES THE MUNICIPAL UTILITIES IN MAY OF 2020, BUT THERE WAS NO ELECTRICAL LOOKED UP WHICH IS WHY THEY WERE RUNNING THE EXTENSION CORD TO THE NEIGHBORS HOUSE. IT'S THAT NEIGHBOR THAT OWNS THE PRO PROPERTY. 
          WE'RE ABLE TO CONFIRM THEY WERE THE RIGHTFUL OWNERS AND INFORMED THEM THEY COULD NOT RUN ELECTRICITY FROM THEIR HOUSE TO 
          THERE. >> WHAT WERE THEY PLUGGING IN? 
          >> I'M ASSUMING SINCE IT WAS CONNECTED THE SECONDARY IT WAS TO CONNECT TOOLS TO DO THIS WORK INSIDE. 
          WE DID LOOK IT UP THAT DAY ALSO IN MARCH AND THERE WAS NO PERMITS ON RECORD, SO ALL THE WORK DONE INSIDE IS WITHOUT 
          PERMITS. >> AS FAR AS YOU KNOW THAT WAS 
          DONE BY THE OWNER? >> AS FAR AS WE KNOW. 
          >> AND THE OWNER LIVES NEXT DOOR? 
          >> YES, SIR. >> BELIEVE THERE'S A VACANT LOT AND THEN HIS HOUSE IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. 
          >> I DROVE BY AND THERE'S A VACANT LOT ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY. AND IT'S BAD, BAD CONDITION. 
          >> I'VE JUST LOOKED AT IT ON GOOGLE EARTH AND THERE'S THREE VACANT LOTS ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT SO THIS IS A STAND ALONE COUPLE OF DELIPIDATED STRUCTURES. 
          NOBODY IS LIVING IN IT. 
          , BUT OUT OF THIS BEING THE LAST PIECE OF STRUCTURES FOR SIX LOTS, THIS IS JUST VERY UNUSUAL AND THEN THE OWNER IS TO THE SOUTH? WHERE WAS THE ELECTRICAL RAN? TO THE SOUTH OR NORTH? BACK WHERE THERE WAS AN 
          EXTENSION CORD. >> TO THE NORTH. 
          >> TO THE NORTH? >> YES, SIR. 
          >> OKAY. >> I'M SORRY IF I THREW YOU OFF WITH THE TERM, COMMUNITY SWEEP. WE HAVE BROUGHT A COMBINATION OF CASES THAT WERE PART OF THE COMMUNITY SWEEP AND THE REASON I SPECIFY THIS IN HERE IS THE INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED ON THAT DATE. THE FOLLOWING CASE IS PART OF THAT COMMUNITY SWEEP, AS WELL, BUT JUST GIVING DETAILS WITH THE GENTLEMEN MAKING VERBAL THREATS I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE EVERY DETAIL IN THERE. I APOLOGIZE WITH THROWING YOU 
          [02:00:03]
          OFF ON THAT. >> IS THERE A MOTION? 
          >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF THAT THE PROPERTY IS THE PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. 
          REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE AND I UNDERSTAND IT IS THE FIRST TIME IT'S BEEN TO US, BUT IT'S IN THAT KIND OF 
          CONDITION. >> MOTION BY MR. ALRED THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND THE REPAIR OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND BY DOCTOR PARIS. 
          ROLL CALL? >> DOCTOR PARIS? 
          >> AYE. >> MR. ALRED? 
          >> YES. >> MR. MCCOLLUM? 
          >> YES. >> MR. TURNER? 
          >> YES. >> MR. SLIDEER? 
          >> YES. >> MR. BEARD? 
          >> YES. >> MOTION CARRIES. 
          >> TO FOLLOW THAT, I MOVE THAT THE OWNER IS ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30-DAYS OR 
          THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH IT. >> MOTION BY MR. ALRED THAT THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IS A HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND SAFETY AND WELFARE, AND ORDERED TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL THE ORDER TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30-DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMOLISH. IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> I'LL SECOND. >> BY DOCTOR PARIS, ROLL CALL? 
          >> DOCTOR PARIS? >> AYE. 
          >> MR. ALRED? >> YES. 
          >> MR. MCCOLLUM? >> YES. 
          >> MR. TURNER? >> YES. 
          >> MR. SHRADER? >> YES. 
          >> MRND MR. BEARD? >> YES. 
          >> MOTION CHARRY? >> LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS 
          [E. Case for Rehabilitation, Demolition or Civil Penalties - Case No. 20-000643: 1310 Locust St. (OT ABILENE BLK 208 JOHN J TOOMS/RINEY-HAYS, LOT 7 & N112 OF LT 8, 2-B), Owner: Maldonado Brothers Holding Group LLC • Public Hearing]
CASE NUMBER 20-000643. NO LOCATED AT 1310 LOCUST. 
          CHECKLIST FOR RECORDS SEARCH SHOWS COUNTY RECORDS AND SHERIFF'S NEED NAME THE MALDONADO HOLDINGS GROUP TO BE THE OWNER. LLC. THE SECRETARY SHOWS ANGEL MALDONADO TO BE THE AGENT AND TO BE MEMBERS OF THE ENTITY. 
          TAX RECORDS IN THIS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 
          UTILITY RECORDS OF THE MUNICIPALITY ARE INACTIVE SINCE 2016. THE SEARCH REVEALS MALDONADO BROTHERS TO BE THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          THIS WAS A PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLISHED FOR TODAY'S MEETING. 
          THIS IS THE FRONT EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          THIS HERE IS EXTENSIVE ROOF ISSUES AND STRUCTURAL EXTERIOR ISSUES, AS WELL. SAME THING ON THE REAR SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. SOUTHSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, AS WELL. SOME OPEN METERED BOXES THERE. 
          EXTERIOR STRUCTURAL ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY C.ORMED AND TOLD THAT HE HAD TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF ACTION WITHIN 30-DAYS. ON MARCH 18TH I MEET WITH HIM IN-PERSON AND EXPLAINED TO HIM THE OPTIONS OR REQUIREMENTS ON REPAIRING OR DEMOLISHING THE STRUCTURE. 
          THE CITY NO LONGER ACCEPTS DONATIONS OF PROPERTIES AND HE 
          [02:05:02]
SAID HE DIDN'T WANT TO INVEST IN IT ANYMORE AND I TOLD HIM HE COULD FIND A BUYER, BUT HE NEEDED TO SUBMIT A PLAN AND HE SAID HE WOULD KEEP ME INFORMED. ON MAY 15TH A PHONE CALL FROM MR. MALDONADO SAID HE WAS WORKING IN SAN ANTONIO AND WOULD NOT BE BACK UNTIL JUNE, BUT HE SAID HE COULD SIGN A CONSENT TO DEMO, SO I EXPLAINED TO HIM HOW THIS PROCESS WOULD WORK. 
          ON JUNE 2ND I FOLLOWED UP TO SEE IF HE RECEIVED THE DOCUMENT AND HE SAID HE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS IT DOING TO BEING ON GUARD DUTY IN SAN ANTONIO SO HE REQUESTED AN EXTENSION TO THEN AND SAID HE MIGHT HAVE A POTENTIAL BUYER, BUT COULD NOT DEAL WITH UNTIL HIS RETURN IN AUGUST. 
          I TOLD HIM I WOULD PASS THE INFORMATION ON. 
          ON JUNE 18TH I INFORMED HIM WE COULD NOT GRANT HIS EXTENSION SO WE WOULD JUST BE PRESENTING IT TO THE MEETING. 
          ON JULY 15TH HE WAS MAILED NOTICE. 
          STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO FIND THE PROPERTY IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IS HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC. 
          THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS EXIST, INADEQUATE SANITATION. 
          STRUCTURAL HAZARD. HAZARDOUS WIRING AND PLUMBING AND FAULTY WEATHER PROTECTION. THE ORDER IS TO ALSO ORDER THE ONER TO DEMOLISH OR APPEAL TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30-DAYS OR THE CITY MAY DEMO 
          DEMOLISH. >> YOU KNOW IF HE'S STILL 
          SERVING IN THE GUARD? >> I'VE NOT HEARD FROM HIM AND I'VE SENT HIM SEVERAL E-MAILS INFORMING HIM WE WOULD BRING THE BEFORE THE BOARD AND A LETTER AND IT WAS RECEIVED. 
          I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A PHONE CALL FROM HIM YET. 
          >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT CAPACITY HE WAS SERVING IN THE GUARD. 
          HE HELPING WITH THE BORDER >> HE DID NOT SPECIFY TO ME. 
          >> SO HE DECLINED TO SIGN THE DEMOLITION AUTHORIZATION. 
          >> INITIALLY HE REQUESTED IT AND THEN STATED HE HAD A POTENTIAL BUYER. HE SAID HE WOULD NOT ADDRESS IT 
          UNTIL HE RETURNED IN AUGUST. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON CASE 20000643. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON 2000643. AND OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. AND A MOTION. 
          ARE WE CERTAIN? DO WE HAVE CONFIRMATION OR DO WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT HE'S GOING TO RETURN IN AUGUST, I GUESS? 
          >> I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT. AGAIN, YEAH, OBVIOUSLY I CAN'T CONFIRM WHEN HIS RETURN WILL ACTUALLY BE. 
          INITIALLY HE SAID HE WOULD RETURN IN JUNE AND WHEN I SPOKE TO HIM IN JUNE HE SAID, HE WAS NOT RETURNING UNTIL AUGUST SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THE GUARD DUTY THING WORKS. 
          HE SAID HE WOULD CON SENT FOR THE CITY TO DEMO AND THEN HE PULLED BACK FROM THAT AND WITH A LACK OF PLAN OR DECISION BEING MADE IS WHY WE BROUGHT IT BEFORE YOU GUYS. 
          >> DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG HE'S OWNED THE PROPERTY? DON'T THESE PEOPLE HAVE A HISTORY WITH US? THE CITY ABOUT REHABILITATING PROPERTIES? 
          >> MALDONADO BROTHERS? THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN PROPERTY OWNED BY THEM THAT I'VE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD, BUT LET ME SEE. ACCORDING TO THE DEED. 
          THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON DECEMBER FIFTH OF 2017. 
          SO THEY'VE OWNED IT SINCE 2017. >> THEY'VE HAD TWO AND A HALF YEARS. ANY DISCUSSION? 
          [02:10:06]
          >> WELL MY FEELINGS ARE THAT IF WE CONDEMN IT AND ORDER DEMOLITION, THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY RESULT IN SOME MONETARY LOSS TO THIS GENTLEMEN, AND HE'S DOWN IN SAN ANTONIO ON THE GUARD I GUESS SERVING OUR COUNTRY. 
          IT APPEARS TO ME THAT MAYBE WE CAN TABLE THIS FOR 30-DAYS AND GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET BACK AND GET THIS STRAIGHTENED OUT, AND IF NOTHING HAPPENS WE CAN GO AHEAD WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THEN SO I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS FOR 30-DAYS. 
          >> AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, HE'S NOT ONLY MEMBER OF THAT ENTITY. 
          THERE ARE OTHERS. >> I UNDERSTAND. 
          >> SO YEAH, BUT I MEAN I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, 
          SIR. >> MOTION BY MR. TURNER THAT WE TABLE THIS FOR 30-DAYS PENDING MR. MALL DONNA'S RETURN IN AUGUST. SECOND? 
          >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> SECOND BY DOCTOR PARIS. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I WAS GOING TO THOUGH, YOU BEAT ME TO IT. 
          >> WE SECOND IT. >> OKAY. 
          SORRY. >> TWO SECONDS. 
          > AND A THIRD BY MR. SHRADER. ROLL CALL. 
          >> DOCTOR PARIS? >> AYE. 
          >> MR. ALRED? >> YES. 
          >> MR. MCCOLLUM? YES. 
          >> MR. TURNER? >> YES. 
          >> MR. SLIDEER? >> YES. 
          >> MR. BEARD? >> YES. 
          >> MOTION CARRIES. >> I GUESS WITH THAT CASE WE ARE 
          THROUGH WITH OUR AGENDA. >> YES, SIR. 
          >> I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR THEIR THOUGHTS AND INPUT TODAY. 
          APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.