* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:02] UM, [CALL TO ORDER] I CALL THE, UH, BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION TO ORDER FOR JANUARY 22ND, UH, 2025. UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE TIME IS 6:46 PM UH, MY NAME IS TIMOTHY STOAT. I AM CHAIR OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. UH, AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL THE ROLE AND ASK FOR COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT TONIGHT TO PLEASE SIGNIFY THAT YOU ARE HERE. AND I'LL BEGIN WITH COMMISSIONER VIC HERE. UH, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART HERE. COMMISSIONER SOCAL. COMMISSIONER OTA LUGO HERE. UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS HERE. UH, COMMISSIONER SELIG, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL HERE. AND, UH, I AM HERE. UH, SO THAT'S, UH, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM. UH, SO BEFORE THE CASES ARE CALLED, UH, COMMISSION WILL ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMUNICATION ON ITEMS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES, UH, OR SIX MINUTES FOR ANYONE REQUIRING INTERPRETATION SERVICES. TONIGHT. THE COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A HEARING FOR, UH, IT SAYS HERE SEVEN ITEMS ON THE POSTED AGENDA. I FEEL LIKE MY AGENDA SAYS EIGHT, BUT I GUESS WE'LL FIND OUT. UM, AND SO I THINK IT'S GONNA BE, UH, 12 CASES FROM, UH, SEVEN PROPERTIES. UH, LET'S SEE. THE CASES WILL BE CONSIDERED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA, UH, EXCEPT THAT THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE A CASE OUT OF ORDER IF IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DO SO. UH, ATTENDEES AT THE HEARING ARE ASKED TO OBSERVE APPROPRIATE DECOR AND CIVILITY, SO AS NOT TO IMPAIR THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS. UH, CODE REVIEW ANALYST, MELANIE ALLEY, WILL CALL EACH CASE ON THE AGENDA, FOLLOWED BY TESTIMONY. UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. SO, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, UH, WE ASK THAT THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY COME FORWARD AND, AND TAKE A SEAT NEAR THE PODIUM, TYPICALLY AT THAT DESK OVER THERE. UM, UH, IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, UH, UNMUTE YOUR PHONE. THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE FIRST AND WILL, UH, HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO DO SO. AND THEN THE, UH, OWNER OR PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE ALLOTTED, UH, FIVE MINUTES, UH, TO CROSS EXAMINE CITY WITNESSES OR, UH, PRESENT THEIR OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE. UH, AND THEN COMPARABLE AMOUNT OF TIME WILL BE AFFORDED THE CITY TO, TO CROSS EXAMINE. UM, WITH, LET'S SEE, WILL OUR DESIGNATED TIMEKEEPER, UH, THIS EVENING, PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF. JAMES EVERWINE WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, MR. EVERWINE. UH, AFTER THE OWNER OF REPRESENTATIVE IS PRESENTED, EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, UH, COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE. UH, AFTER COMMISSION MEMBERS ASK QUESTIONS, I WILL ALLOW OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENT TO OFFER RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CASE. UH, BOTH SIDES AND THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. I WILL ALSO GIVE THE OWNER OR, UH, PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVE IN ADDITIONAL THREE MINUTES TO SUMMARIZE IF, IF THEY, UH, CARE TO DO SO. AND, UH, THEN AT THE CHAIR'S DISCRETION, THE CITY MAY BE PERMITTED TO, UH, PRESENT A REBUTTAL SUMMATION AS WELL. AFTER EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ARE CONCLUDED, COMMISSION WILL DISCUSS THE CASE AND VOTE ON A DECISION. THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WILL BE ANNOUNCED TONIGHT, AND A COPY OF THE DECISION WILL BE MAILED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. UH, DECISION IS FINAL AND BINDING, UNLESS APPEALED TO THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS, AS PROVIDED IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROCEDURE, PLEASE ASK, UH, WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, WITNESSES DO TESTIFY UNDER OATH. SO ANY PERSON WISHING TO, UH, PRESENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IN ANY CASE, INCLUDING THOSE REMOTING IN, PLEASE AT THIS TIME STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU MAY BE SWORN. OKAY? ALRIGHT. UH, SO DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, I DO. I DO. THANK YOU. AND IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL, UH, PROCEED TO CONSIDER, UH, THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING. AND AS USUAL, THE [1. Approve the minutes of the Building and Standards Commission special called meeting on November 7, 2024] FIRST AGENDA ITEM IS ALWAYS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETING. AND, UH, OUR MOST RECENT MEETING WAS WAY BACK IN NOVEMBER, UH, NOVEMBER 7TH. IT WAS A SPECIAL CALL MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024. AND SO, UM, LET'S SEE, ONE MOMENT. SO COPIES OF THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE IN THE GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OF YOUR READERS FOR YOUR REVIEW, UH, COMMISSION. UH, WILL, UM, UH, AS A, JUST AS A NOTE, FOR THOSE WHO DON'T RECALL, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE ATTENDED THE MEETING IN ORDER TO, TO VOTE ON THE MINUTES. UH, YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE MINUTES. UH, SO, UM, AT THIS TIME, UH, WE DON'T HAVE TO BE REMOTING IN SO IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A ROLL CALL. SO ON THIS ONE, I'LL JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. UM, SO, UH, BUT I, I DO BELIEVE I NEED A MOTION FOR THIS. SO DOES ANYBODY, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. UH, OKAY. VICE CHAIR, UH, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. SO, ON THE MOTION [00:05:01] OF VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OLUGO, UH, TO, UH, APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 7TH, 2024. SPECIAL CALL MEETING. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SOUNDS UNANIMOUS TO ME. SO WITH THAT, THE, UH, MINUTES ARE APPROVED AND WE CAN MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMUNICATION, AND I DON'T SHOW THAT WE HAVE ANY WITNESSES SIGNED UP FOR THAT. SO I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO AND, UM, DON'T, DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO TAKE THEM OUT OF GO, OH, SORRY. ONE MOMENT. OKAY. UH, THANKS. SO, UH, THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE. [2. Case Number: CL 2024-090872] SO WE'RE GONNA GO ON TO AGENDA ITEM, UH, NUMBER TWO, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE, UH, EAST 51ST STREET PROPERTY. AND, UH, I'LL LET CODE REVIEW ANALYST. ALI, TAKE IT FROM HERE. I, I DON'T HAVE IT IF THIS ONE WORKS. YES. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 24 0 9 0 8 72, AND IS REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1202 EAST 51ST STREET. STAFF EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE ORANGE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE. THIS CASE IS REGARDING AN UNOCCUPIED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE. THE CASE WAS OPENED IN JUNE, 2023 AS THE RESULT OF A COMPLAINT ABOUT A FIRE DAMAGE VACANT STRUCTURE. THIS IS AN ACT. THERE IS AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION BP 2 2 25 0 0 1 5 1 1. THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE IN ITS CONSIDERED DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE REPAIR. IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY. A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, THE REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS, A FIRE INCIDENT REPORT, A POLICE ACTIVITY REPORT, AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO R AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE. INVESTIGATOR COURTNEY BRITT IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS FOR THIS CASE, AND WE'LL DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED. INVESTIGATOR BRITT, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS COURTNEY BRITT. I'M A CODE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE. THIS PROPERTY IS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX, LOCATED AT 1202 EAST 51ST STREET. THE OWNERS OF RECORD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS 51ST CENTER, LLC PER THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT. ON JUNE 23RD, 2023, WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT OF, FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM THE AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR A DANGEROUS STRUCTURE OCCUPIED BY PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS THAT DAY. INSPECTOR JAVIER SALAS CONDUCTED AN INITIAL INSPECTION AND CONTACTED THE OWNER, THE OWNER BOARDED AND SECURED THE PROPERTY. THE NEXT DAY. INSPECTOR SALAS CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION ON JULY 11TH, 2023. HE DOCUMENTED THE VIOLATIONS AND MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER IDENTIFIED IN THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND REGISTERED AGENT IDENTIFIED IN THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE REGISTRY ON JULY 18TH, 2023 FROM JULY, 2023 TO PRESENT CODE COMPLIANCE AND THE OWNER'S AGENT HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT TO ADDRESS ONGOING ISSUES IN THE PROPERTY. THE OWNERS HAVE INSTALLED LIGHTS, CAMERAS, AND AT TIMES RETAINED SECURITY CONTRACTORS IN ORDER TO MITIGATE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY ON THE PREMISES. THEY HAVE REMOVED PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND RESECURED THE VACANT STRUCTURE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. WHILE THIS SHOWS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE OWNERS, IT ALSO DEMONSTRATES EXHAUSTION OF OTHER METHODS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION TO THE BSC. ALSO, THIS PROPERTY IS PART OF A PARCEL OF TENANT ADJOINING PROPERTIES AWAITING REDEVELOPMENT. THAT PARCEL CONTAINS FOUR ADDITIONAL BLIGHTED TRUCTURE STRUCTURES, NOT SUBJECT TO TODAY'S HEARING. IN RESPONSE TO A NEW COMPLAINT RECEIVED VIA VIA 3 1 1, I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION ON OCTOBER 18TH, 2024, AND OBSERVED 28 CODE VIOLATIONS. I DOCUMENTED THE VIOLATIONS AND ISSUED A NEW NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER AND REGISTERED AGENT AND POSTED [00:10:01] A COPY OF THE NOTICE ON THE PREMISES. ON OCTOBER 25TH, OWNERS FILED A DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2024. DSD STAFF RETURNED COMMENTS FOR CORRECTION ON NOVEMBER 26TH. THE APPLICATION HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN APPROVED AND IS IN A ACTIVE STATUS ON JANUARY 13TH, 2025, AND CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND CONFIRMED THAT 25 OF THE VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY REMAIN VALID. I'LL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED. THIS IS PHOTO TWO A. IT'S A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURES OF THE PREMISES. THERE ARE THREE STRUCTURES FOR A TOTAL OF 27 INDIVIDUAL UNITS. THIS SHOWS THE DETAILS OF THIS PHOTO SHOW THAT THE STRUCTURE IS UNSAFE FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY, THAT IT HAS, UH, UNSAFE STRUCTURES DUE TO NEGLECT, UH, UNSECURE AND ABANDONED STRUCTURES. THAT IS WE, IT'S A VIOLATION OF VACANT STRUCTURES AND LAND FOR LIGHTING, AND IT LACKS ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION, UH, REQUIRED PER THE FIRE CODE. PHOTO TWO B IS A PHOTO OF THE BROKEN BOARDED AND BROKEN WINDOWS AND DOORS. THIS PHOTO IS A TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF THE CONDITION OF THE WINDOWS AND DOORS THROUGHOUT ALL THREE STRUCTURES. THIS SHOWS VIOLATIONS OF THE IPMC FOR WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES, THE BROKEN GLASS OR GLAZING, UH, THE WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES THEMSELVES BEING IN DETERIORATING CONDITION, THE DOORS MISSING LOCKS AND HARDWARE, AND THE EXTERIOR DOORS BEING MISSING OR DAMAGED. PHOTO TWO C IS A PHOTO OF THE REAR OF THE CENTER STRUCTURE WITH MISSING SIDING, INADEQUATELY PATCHED SIDING AND EXPOSED INSULATION BEING A VIOLATION OF IPMC FOR EXTERIOR WALLS. NEXT PHOTO. PHOTO 2D IS THE BROKEN AND DILAPIDATED FENCE, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF IPMC FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. NEXT, PHOTO TWO E SHOWS THE CHIPPING AND PEELING PAINT AS TYPICAL THROUGHOUT ALL THREE STRUCTURES. THIS IS A VI, UH, IPMC VIOLATION FOR PROTECTIVE TREATMENT. PHOTO TWO, UH, NEXT PHOTO, SORRY. UH, TWO F THROUGH TWO. I SHOWED THE ROOFING DEFICIENCIES FOR A VIOLATION OF ROOFS AND DRAINAGE FOR THE I UNDER IPMC. SO TWO F. ALRIGHT, WE CAN SEE, UH, ON THE UPPER RIGHT HAND CORNER, DILAPIDATED ROOFING FASCIA. WE GO TO TWO G. THIS IS A CLOSEUP OF THE FASCIA. IT ALSO SHOWS THE WASP NESTS, WHICH ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT THE PREMISES AND ARE A VIOLATION FOR INFESTATION. NEXT PHOTO TWO H SHOWS BROKEN AND MISSING ROOFING TRIM AND SOFFIT AT THE TRUSS ENDS. TWO I SHOWS ANOTHER HOLE IN THE SOFFIT AND NOW ONTO TWO J. THIS SHOWS CUT AND DANGLING ELECTRIC SERVICE WIRING AT THE WEATHERHEAD OF THE CENTER BUILDING. NEXT PHOTO, 2K SHOWS THE MISSING METERS, DAMAGED METER SOCKETS AND DAMAGED ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION PANELS. THIS IS AN ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS HAZARD UNDER IPMC. ALSO, UH, VIOLATION FOR LACKING THE REQUIRED ELECTRIC SERVICE. AND FOR RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES NOT HAVING THE PROPER, UH, HEATING TWO L SHOWS EXPOSED WOOD STRUCTURAL STUDS, DEGRADED AND DETACHED FROM THE FOUNDATION AND THE SILL PLATE BEING COMPLETELY ROTTED AWAY. THIS SHOWS UNSAFE STRUCTURES, UM, DILAPIDATED STRUCTURAL MEMBERS AND, UH, DETERIORATION OF WOOD ON THE PREMISES. TWO M AND TWO N SHOW MISSING DAMAGED LIGHTING, UH, ABOVE THE EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS. SO THIS PHOTO AL, UH, ALSO SHOWS MISS, UH, MISSING LIGHTING ABOVE THE EXTERIOR STAIRWAYS, WHICH IS VIOLATION OF IPMC FOR, UH, LIGHTING REQUIRED IN COMMON HALLS AND STAIRWAYS, AND ALSO DAMAGED, UH, LIGHTING FIXTURES. PHOTO TWO O SHOWS DAMAGED FIRE ALARM EQUIPMENT. PHOTO TWO P SHOWS DAMAGED HANDRAILS AND GUARDRAILS, WHICH, UM, IS A VIOLATION OF IPMC FOR HANDRAILS REQUIRED AND GUARDRAILS REQUIRED. PHOTO TWO Q SHOWS A BROKEN, DISCONNECTED HOT WATER HEATER VISIBLE THROUGH A HOLE IN THE EXTERIOR WALL. AND THEN PHOTO TWO R SHOWS ONE OF THE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED UNITS. UH, AS OF THIS MORNING, THIS UNIT AND AT LEAST THREE OTHERS ON THE PREMISES REMAIN OCCUPIED. ALSO, UH, AS MY, AS PER MY EXP INSPECTION THIS MORNING, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ONGOING DEMOLITION, NO STAGED EQUIPMENT OR NO, UH, NOTIFICATION TO THE NEIGHBORS FOR PENDING DEMOLITION CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS. AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND ATTRACTIVE [00:15:01] NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO R. STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED. A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. B, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY. IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL. AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION. UH, THANK YOU MELANIE. UH, SO AT THIS TIME I WILL, UM, WITHOUT OBJECTION, I'LL ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO R. IS THERE OBJECTION, HEARING NONE. THE EXHIBITS ARE ADMITTED. AND, UM, UH, SO THEN I, THE NEXT WE MAY HAVE SOMEONE ONLINE. YEAH, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY, UH, DO WE HAVE, I'M SURE THAT WE, WE SHOULD HAVE A, UM, A HEATHER FINKY ONLINE, IS THAT RIGHT? YES. AH, CAN YOU HEAR US MS. ONLINE? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND YEAH. AND, UH, BEFORE YOU BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE, FOR THE CITY OR WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU JUST LIKE TO GET STRAIGHT INTO YOUR, YOUR PRESENTATION? UH, NO. UM, WE, AS, UH, OFFICER BRITT SAID, WE'VE BEEN IN CONSTANT CONTACT, YOU KNOW, IN DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO, UM, MITIGATE, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, BREAKING AND ENTERING, I GUESS, INTO THESE BUILDINGS AND JUST ALL THE, UM, ISSUES THAT HAVE OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF PEOPLE BASICALLY, UM, DESTROYING THE PROPERTY. UH, SO WE HAVE MOVED TO, WE'VE PULLED A DEMO PERMIT AND, UM, WE HAVE, WE'RE STARTING DEMOLITION. WHAT I, WELL, THE ONLY THING I WANNA SAY IS THAT OFFICER BRITT SAID AS OF THIS MORNING, THERE WASN'T ANY SIGN OF DEMOLITION. I ACTUALLY HAVE PHOTOS THAT SHOW, AND THIS MAY HAVE JUST BEEN LIKE, HE WAS THERE THIS MORNING AND THEY GOT THE FENCE UP THIS AFTERNOON, BUT IT HAS THE DEMOLITION FENCE AROUND IT NOW, THE GREEN FENCE WITH THE POSTED NOTICES, THEY WILL HAVE THE BUILDING BUILDING DOWN BY NEXT WEEK, ALL, ALL BUILDINGS. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU MS. PENSKI. AND, AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION OTHER THAN, OTHER THAN TO SHARE THAT? YEAH, I JUST, I, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SHARE IT. NO, THAT'S THE PHONE. UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK, 'CAUSE I USUALLY, SO THE NEXT, THE NEXT STEP AT THIS POINT IS I WOULD OPEN THE FLOOR TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IN CASE ANY OF THEM HAD QUESTIONS FOR YOURSELF OR THE CITY, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I GAVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK FIRST. YEAH, THANK YOU. NO, JUST TO SAY THAT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY DEMOING THESE BUILDINGS. OKAY, GREAT. THEN WITH THAT, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, FOR THE, UH, CODE INVESTIGATOR OR, UM, OR MS UH, KY? UH, OKAY. IT APPEARS NOT. UM, SO, SO WITH THAT, UM, I GUESS, UH, LET ME ASK YOU, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, MS. PENSKE. SO IF YOU'RE PLANNING ON DEMOING NEXT WEEK, OR YOUR, YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PROPERTY WILL BE DEMOLISHED NEXT WEEK. DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER? AND, AND THE REASON I ASK IT THAT WAY IS THAT IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH, UH, IT'S UNLIKELY EVER TO, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOT A 45 DAY COMPLIANCE PERIOD, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE GONNA BE IN COMPLIANCE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS. AND SO, UH, SHOULD WE ADOPT STAFF'S, UH, PROPOSED, UH, ORDER THIS EVENING THAT WOULDN'T GIVE YOU ANY, ANY CAUSE FOR CONCERN? UM, NO. WE'VE TALKED WITH OUR COUNSEL AS WELL. UM, WE WERE HOPING TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE BUILDING DOWN EVEN BEFORE THIS HEARING, SO I'M NOT SURE HOW ALL THIS REALLY WORKS, BUT, UM, I, YEAH, I DIDN'T KNOW BECAUSE THE ORDER IS LIKE TO REPAIR IT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO REPAIR ANYTHING. RIGHT. THE BUILDING WON'T EXIST. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GETS, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT DIFFERENTLY NOW BECAUSE OF THAT. UM, I'M NOT SURE OH, NO, YEAH, DEMOLITION GEN GENERALLY WILL BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE, RIGHT? THE, THE VIOLATIONS WILL CEASE TO EXIST. SO, UH, NO. YEAH, THE ONLY REASON [00:20:01] I ASK IS THAT, IS THAT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WASN'T SOME, UH, SOME ASK YOU HAD OF US, OR SOME REQUEST OF US THAT I, THAT I HAD FAILED TO NOTE. SO, UH, SO WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO NOW, I'M GONNA ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING AND MOVE ON TO, UH, UH, MOTIONS AND DISCUSSION. UM, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU, YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO GO AHEAD AND MUTE YOUR PHONE, BUT I'D ASK YOU TO REMAIN ON THE LINE BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE, YOUR, THE, THE, YOUR TESTIMONY IS CONCLUDED, UH, WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS. AND SO WE ASK THAT YOU JUST KIND OF SIT TIGHT, UM, IN CASE, UH, IN CASE SOME QUESTIONS COME UP DURING THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSION. BUT, BUT, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING, AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AND WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS TO, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL. UH, I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? UH, SO ON THE MOTION OF, UM, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND, UH, I GUESS, UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? OKAY. UH, THERE BEING, UM, UH, NO OPPOSITION, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS CLOSED. UH, SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO MOTIONS AND DISCUSSION NOW. AND, UH, SO CONSISTENT WITH SORT OF ROBERT'S RULES AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, UH, TRY NOT TO JUST HAVE OPEN-ENDED DISCUSSION. PREFER TO HAVE, UH, DISCUSSION IN THE CONTEXT OF A PENDING MOTION. UH, SO AT THIS TIME, IF ANYBODY HAS A WOOD CARE TO, OKAY, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, UH, I'D MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S POST FINDING THE FACTS IN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, UM, AND ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY. OKAY, THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. UH, OKAY, SO THE MOTION, UH, MEMBERS, YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION, IT'S ON THE MOTION OF VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS TO ADOPT STAFF'S, UH, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT MODIFICATION. AND SO THAT'S A 45 DAY, UH, COMPLIANCE, UH, WITH A, UM, THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK PENALTY TO ACCRUE THEREAFTER. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I'LL BEGIN WITH THE AUTHOR OF THE MOTION, VICE CAMPBELL, IF YOU'D LIKE TO OPEN. UH, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WILL PROBABLY BE FINE, GIVEN THAT THEY INTEND TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY. UM, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT IF ANYBODY REALLY HAS A PROBLEM WITH THIS ORDER AND WANTS IT TO BE A DEMOLITION ORDER INSTEAD, I KNOW SOMETIMES WE'VE DONE THAT IN CASES LIKE THIS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE GIVEN THEIR TIMEFRAME, IT WON'T REALLY CHANGE THINGS EITHER WAY. UM, SO I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY TO LET THE MOTION GO THROUGH AS IS, BUT JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. OKAY, THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR. UH, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? UH, DOES ANYBODY HAVE WELL, OKAY, I THINK WITH THAT, UM, AND ONE THING I'LL JUST SAY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS, IT'S JUST A POINT OF PRIVILEGE. UM, I, I THINK IT'S PREFERABLE IF, IF YOU HAVE, UM, OPPOSITION TO A MOTION, UH, PARTICULARLY IF YOUR OPPOSITION IS GONNA BE MAKE OR BREAK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AT A BARRACK QUORUM AND YOU KNOW, WE NEED EVERY VOTE TO, TO PASS, UM, THE DISCUSSION PERIOD IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF AIR THAT ISSUE BEFORE LETTING IT SORT OF GO DOWN IN FLAMES ON A VOTE. SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DO IT JUST AS A COURTESY TO YOUR FELLOW MEMBERS, OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN DO WITH YOUR VOTE AS YOU, AS YOU WILL. UH, BUT, UH, I THINK THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM. BUT, UM, I, SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THIS ONE HAS A CHANCE. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND PUT IT TO THE BODY. UH, IT'LL BE A ROLL CALL VOTE. AND I'M GONNA BEGIN WITH OUR, UH, NEWEST MEMBER, UH, COMMISSIONER VIC. AYE. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER VIC VOTES. AYE. COMMISSIONER LOCKHART AYE. COMMISSIONER OLUGO? AYE, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. AYE, UH, VICE CAMPBELL? AYE. OKAY. CHAIR VOTES. AYE. THERE BEING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS. UH, THE MOTION CARRIES AND, UH, IT IS ADOPTED. UM, AND I WILL, UH, MS. PENSKY, DO YOU, UH, IF YOU'RE STILL ON THE LINE, DO YOU, UH, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION'S ACTION THIS EVENING? DO YOU HAVE ANY LAST QUESTIONS? ONCE AGAIN, HI, I AM STILL HERE. UH, NO, I, I UNDERSTAND. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE, UH, THE ORDER WILL BE MAILED, UH, TO THE ADDRESS ON FILE. THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING THIS EVENING. AND WITH THAT, UM, WE WILL MOVE ON TO, WELL, LET ME CHECK WITH, UH, JAMES. UH, I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A REQUEST TO TAKE AN ITEM UP OUT OF ORDER BECAUSE OF THE LIMITED AVAILABILITY OF ONE OF THE WITNESSES. ARE WE READY WITH, UH, THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ON CASE FIVE YET? I DON'T THINK HE'S THE ONLINE YET. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TWO REPRESENTATIVES ONLINE, BUT I DON'T THINK EITHER ONE OF THEM. OKAY. THANK YOU, MELANIE. UM, ARE THERE, WELL, IN THAT CASE, I GUESS I'LL JUST GO, GO IN ORDER. UM, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER THREE. THIS [3. Case Number: CL 2024-137293] IS THE PROPERTY AT, UH, UH, CO UH, CORONADO STREET. [00:25:13] ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 24 1 3 7 2 3, AND IS REGARDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2301 CORONADO STREET. THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE PURPLE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE. THIS CASE IS REGARDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE CASE WAS OPENED IN FEBRUARY, 2020. AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT, THE PROPERTY IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. DS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ENGAGED THE OWNER PRIOR TO THE HEARING REGARDING A PROPOSED AGREED ORDER, WHICH BOTH PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO AND SIGNED. AND YOUR READER IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING, AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS. A COPY OF THE PROPOSED AGREED ORDER SIGNED BY THE OWNER IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE, AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH 2D AND THE PROPOSED AGREED ORDER. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A SIGNED AGREED ORDER CODE, INSPECTOR CHRISTINA LUNDY IS HERE TO ADDRESS THE VIOLATIONS, PROVIDE BACKGROUND ON THE CASE, WALK THROUGH THE PHOTO EXHIBITS AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. INSPECTOR LUNDY, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA LUNDY. I'M A CITY OF AUSTIN CODE INSPECTOR C UH, THE CASE I'M PRESENTING BEFORE YOU WILL BE FOR 2 3 0 1 CORONADO STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS. AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS. ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2020, THE CITY OF AUSTIN RECEIVED A 3 1 1 COMPLAINT FOR THIS PROPERTY STATING THERE WERE PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS LIVING IN THE ABANDONED HOUSE. THE INITIAL INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED ON FEBRUARY 19TH, 2020, WHERE MULTIPLE EXTERIOR IPMC VIOLATIONS WERE OBSERVED ON AUGUST 1ST, 2024, THE MOST RECENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT, AND THAT NOTICE WAS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY ON AUGUST 20TH, 2024. SINCE FEBRUARY 19TH, 2020 THROUGH TODAY, MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY HAVE BEEN MADE. THE FOLLOWING PHOTOGRAPHS ARE REPRESENTATION OF MANY OF THE DEFICIENCIES FOUND THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT TWO A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2 3 0 1 CORONADO STREET. EXHIBIT TWO A ALSO SHOWS A LARGE HOLE AND THE SITING WHERE A PORCH AWNING ONCE STOOD A HOLE THAT EXPOSES THE INTERIOR ROOFING SYSTEM AND THE INTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE TO THE ELEMENTS AND POSSIBLE INTRUSION OF RAIN AND PESTS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. EXHIBIT TWO B IS ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPHIC EXAMPLE OF THE FOUNDATION AND ITS SKIRTING AND DISREPAIR ALONG WITH FASCIA BOARDS IN DISREPAIR AND BOARDED UP WINDOWS AND DOORS. EX UH, NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. EXHIBIT TWO C IS A PICTURE OF AN AREA WHERE A DOOR WAS REMOVED, EXPOSING THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM TO THE ELEMENTS, THE POSSIBLE INTRUSION OF RAIN AND PESTS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. EXHIBIT 2D IS ANOTHER REPRESENTATION OF WINDOWS AND DOORS AND DISREPAIR, ALONG WITH EXPOSED UNREMOVED ELECTRICAL, ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS. YOU CAN ALSO SEE BY THE GRAFFITI FOUND THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE THAT THIS HAS BECOME AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE. WITH THIS, I CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION OF 2 3 0 1 CORONADO STREET AND STRONGLY URGE THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO ADOPT STAFF'S AGREED ORDERS. THANK YOU. BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH 2D. STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THE PARTIES SIGNED AGREED ORDER WHEREBY THE OWNER HAS AGREED TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE, WITHIN 75 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED. A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. B DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND REMOVE HIS DEBRIS, LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RAKED C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B TWO. ON THE [00:30:01] 76TH DAY. IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, A AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURES AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH. B THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES INCURRED AGAINST THE PROPERTY UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. A LIEN FOR THOSE EXPENSES MAY BE FILED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND RECORDED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS, INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL. AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU, MELANIE. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ADMIT, UH, WITHOUT OBJECTION, I'LL ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE, UH, AND, UH, TWO A THROUGH 2D. IS THERE OBJECTION, HEARING NONE. THE EXHIBITS ARE ADMITTED. AND, UM, WE HAVE, I'M SHOWING NO ONE REGISTERED IN PERSON FOR THIS ONE, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE AN, AN ALEXANDER. IS IT FREEMAN ON THE LINE, IS THAT YES, HE IS CURRENTLY ONLINE. OKAY. AND, UH, MR. FREEMAN, FORGIVE ME, SORRY, CAN YOU HEAR US? YES, I CAN. COULD YOU HEAR? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN. THANK YOU. UH, SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING. UH, WOULD YOU CARE TO, UH, UH, WOULD YOU CARE TO, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, UH, INSPECTOR LUNDY OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUST GET RIGHT INTO YOUR, UH, AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY TONIGHT? HOWEVER YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT? UH, NO, NO, NO, NO QUESTIONS ON MY END. I THINK WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE, OF THE AGREED ORDER AND WHERE TO PROCEED. WE'RE READY TO, UH, WE'RE READY TO PROCEED WITH, WITH DEMOLITION WITHIN THE PROPOSED TIMEFRAME. UH, WE HAVE TAKEN ACTIVE MEASURE AS, UH, HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED, UH, TO FENCE THE PROPERTY AND PROVIDE, WE ARE ALSO ALREADY, WE HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED PERMITTING, UH, IN THE FORM OF A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION, UH, THAT, UH, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, WE'RE GOOD TO WORK ON, ON THE TION, UH, AS SOON AS, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. SO WE EXPECT TO BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE, UH, BY DEMOLISHING IN, IN THE NEAR FUTURE. OKAY. SO AT THE PROPOSED AGREED ORDER AS READ BY MS. ALI, JUST NOW, Y YOU'RE, YOU'RE FINE WITH ALL THAT? UH, YES I AM. OKAY. UH, WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY THIS EVENING. UH, WE DON'T REQUIRE ANY FURTHER SORT OF AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY FROM YOU, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU JUST, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND JUST REMAINING ON THE LINE, UH, UNTIL THE CASE IS DISPOSED, JUST IN CASE ANY QUESTIONS COME UP. UM, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO, UH, AT THIS TIME, DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTOR LUNDY OR MR. UH, FREEMAN? UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, I HAVE A QUESTION. JUST CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OH, OKAY. UM, SO, UH, NO QUESTIONS AND I NOW HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SECOND AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART. UM, THERE, UH, LET'S DO A VOICE VOTE. UM, ALL IN FAVOR, AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? AYE. OKAY. UH, SO THERE, UH, BEING, UH, SIX A, NO NAYS, UH, THE, THE PUBLIC PORTION IS CLOSED. WE'LL MOVE ON TO MOTIONS. UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION? VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER. OKAY, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. SO ON THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER, UH, SORRY. UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL AS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED AGREED ORDER WITHOUT MODIFICATION. THAT IS TO SAY IT'S A PRETTY STANDARD DEMOLITION ORDER WITHIN 75 DAYS. UM, UH, WE'LL TURN NOW TO DISCUSSION AND I WILL RECOGNIZE VICE CAMPBELL AS THE AUTHOR OF THE MOTION TO OPEN. UH, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE IN THE ACTUAL CASE IS IN AGREEMENT, SO THIS SHOULD BE RELATIVELY SIMPLE. OKAY. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY, HEARING NONE. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND PUT THE QUESTION TO THE BODY. AND SO THIS IS ON THE MOTION OF VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, A SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED AGREED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY WITHOUT MODIFICATION REQUIRED DEMOLITION WITHIN 75 DAYS. UM, THIS WILL BE A ROLL CALL VOTE. I'LL BEGIN WITH COMMISSIONER VIC. AYE. COMMISSIONER VIC VOTES. AYE. COMMISSIONER LOCKHART AYE. COMMISSIONER LOCKHART VOTES. AYE. COMMISSIONER OLUGO AYE. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. AYE COMM, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL AYE. CHAIR VOTES AYE. THERE BEING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS. UH, THE, UH, PROPOSED AGREED ORDER IS ADOPTED. UH, MR. UH, FREEMAN, UH, THE, UH, ORDER WILL BE, UH, MAILED OUT TO YOU. THANK YOU FOR, UH, PARTICIPATING THIS EVENING. YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO, TO HANG UP AT THIS TIME. AND, UH, WITH THAT I'M GONNA CHECK IN WITH, UM, MR. LES ONE MORE TIME. DO WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE LINE YET OR ARE WE STILL OKAY? UH, CERTAINLY. [00:35:01] SO AT THE REQUEST OF, UH, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF, THE, UH, THE COMMISSION WILL, UH, STAND AT EASE FOR A BRIEF RECESS. UH, NOT MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES. UH, PLEASE SIT TIGHT. OKAY. WE ARE, UM, MAKING SURE WE'RE BACK. WE ARE BACK. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT, UH, 7:31 PM AND, UH, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE READY [5. Case Number: CL 2024-139363] TO MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA. AND, UH, SO I WILL RECOGNIZE CODE REVIEW ANALYST, UH, ALLIE, ITEM NUMBER FIVE. LET'S SEE THAT THERE GOES. ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 24 1 3 9 360 3 AND IS REGARDING AN UNOCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 0 9 DELMAR AVENUE. THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GREEN BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE. THIS CASE WAS OPENED IN MAY, 2024 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT REGARDING A DILAPIDATED FIRE DAMAGE STRUCTURE. THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY RELATED TO THE SIGHTED VIOLATIONS. THIS RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE AND DANGEROUS WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS AND REQUIRE DEMOLITION IN YOUR READERS. IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY. A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS, AND A FIRE IN A FIRE INCIDENT REPORT. AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS TWO A THROUGH TWO J AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INSPECTOR SYLVIA VIAL IS CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE. AND HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS THEY ARE DEPICTED. INSPECTOR AL, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. UH, GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. GOOD. COMMISSIONER, MY NAME IS SYLVIA AL AND I A CODE INSPECTOR FOR THE I GOT IT. HANG, SORRY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS SYLVIA AL AND I A CODE INSPECTOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE. THE PROPERTY BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 0 9 DELMAR AVENUE. UH, THE OWNERS OF RECORD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS TYRONE AND LA CLEMENS PER THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON MAY 6TH, 2024. WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FOR THIS PROPERTY VIA THREE 11 FOR DANGEROUS FIRE DAMAGE STRUCTURE. ON MAY 7TH, 2024, MYSELF AND INSPECTOR DAVID CRUZ PERFORMED AN INSPECTION AND OBSERVED THE BURN STRUCTURE WITH MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF AUSTIN CODE ARTICLE NINE, SECTION 25, 12 TO 11, ADOPTING THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE. ON JUNE 4TH, I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION, DOCUMENTED THE VIOLATIONS, AND MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER, IDENTIFIED ANY TRAVIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT. ON JULY 1ST, 2024, I RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS WERE ACCESSING THE STRUCTURE. UH, I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION, CONFIRMED THE REPORTS THAT INITIATED AN EMERGENCY BOARD AND SECURE OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS. ON AUGUST 30TH, 2024, SUPERVISOR MOSES RODRIGUEZ NOTED ADDITIONAL STRUCTURED VIOLATIONS SET A NEW NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES SUBSEQUENTLY IDENTIFIED AS PARTIES TO A PARTITION LAWSUIT OVER THE PROPERTY. THE OWNERSHIP AND DISPOSITION OF THIS PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A PARTITION LAWSUIT IN TRAVIS COUNTY BETWEEN THE HEIRS. AT THIS TIME, THE LAWSUIT REMAINS OPEN, HOWEVER, THE JUDGE HAS ISSUED A AN AGREED TO SELL THE PROPERTY ON SEPTEMBER 24TH. CURRENTLY, NONE OF THE, I'M SORRY, CURRENTLY NONE OF THE PUBLIC PUBLICY AVAILABLE REAL ESTATE WEBSITES SHOW A LISTING FOR THIS PROPERTY. ON JANUARY 13TH, 2025, I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW UP INSPECTION AND CONFIRMED THAT THE VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY REMAIN HAVE REMAIN VALID. I'LL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED. PHOTO TWO A, UH, IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE PREMISES FROM DELMAR AVENUE WITH BOARDED WINDOWS AND EVIDENCE OF FIRE DAMAGE. UH, NEXT PHOTO PLEASE, WHICH IS TWO B IS A PHOTO OF BOARDED WINDOWS, WHICH ARE BROKEN, AND FIRE DAMAGE, WHICH IS WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES. SECTION 3 0 4 DASH [00:40:01] 13 DASH ONE. NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. PHOTO TWO C IS A PHOTO OF BOARDED WINDOWS DAMAGED EXTERIOR WALLS, AND DAMAGED ROOF. NEXT, UH, PHOTO PLEASE. THIS PHOTO 2D IS A CLOSEUP OF A BROKEN EXTERIOR SIDING WITH HOLES. UH, NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. TWO E IS A CLOSEUP SHOWING A DEPRESSION IN THE ROOF INDICATING STRUCTURAL DAMAGE DUE TO COLLAPSED TRUSSES AND SHEETING. UH, THIS FALLS UNDER THE ROOFS AND DAMAGE SECTION 3 0 4 0.7. NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. TWO F IS AN ADDITIONAL CLOSEUP SHOWING DAMAGE AND MISSING ROOFING SHINGLES. NEXT PHOTO, PLEASE. THIS IS TWO G, WHICH SHOWS THE EX EXTENSIVE FIRE DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURAL MEMBERS OF THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS UNDER UNSAFE CONDITIONS SECTION 3 0 4. NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. THIS ONE IS TWO H, WHICH SHOWS THE ELECTRICAL METER STILL ATTACHED TO THE STRUCTURE. NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. TWO. I SHOWS FIRE DAMAGE NEAR THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE. WEATHERHEAD. NEXT PHOTO, PLEASE. THIS IS TWO J, WHICH SHOWS DAMAGE TO LIGHT FIXTURE, WHICH IS UNDER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT EXPOSED TO FIRE SECTION 6 0 4 DASH THREE DASH 2.1. UH, SORRY ABOUT THAT. UH, AND THAT WILL CONCLUDE MY TESTIMONY. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY ANSWER TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SU DANGEROUS AND SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. STAFF ASK THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO J. STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED. A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. B DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND REMOVE HIS DEBRIS, LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RAKED AND C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM THE AUSTIN CO. CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY. IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, A AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURES AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH. B THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES INCURRED AGAINST THE PROPERTY UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. A LIEN FOR THOSE EXPENSES MAY BE FILED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND RECORDED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS, INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL. AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU MS. ALI. UH, SO AT THIS TIME, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, UH, I WILL ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO J IS THERE OBJECTION AND HEARING NONE THE EXHIBITS ARE ADMITTED. UM, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY ON THE LINE. DO I HAVE A MR. RHODES? MR. RHODES RHODES, THOMAS RHODES. OKAY. MR. CLEMENS? YEAH, I'M HERE. I'M LISTENING. I'M HERE. OKAY, SO THAT, AND I GATHER, UH, WERE YOU GENTLEMEN SWORN EARLIER? I, I I TAKE IT YOU PROBABLY WERE NOT, IS THAT CORRECT? I MEAN, WHO ARE YOU ASKING? YOU WERE THAT YOU WERE NOT SWORN? WHO WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO? TYRONE, UH, WHICH ONE ARE YOU TALKING TO? UH, BOTH OF US. WELL, I GUESS I WAS, I GUESS I WAS ASKING, ASKING BOTH OF YOU. UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO DIAL IN AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING AND, UH, FOR THOSE OFFERING TESTIMONY AT THE MEETINGS, WE, UH, WE, UH, TESTIMONY IS OFFERED UNDER OATH. SO, UH, IF YOU, IF YOU WEREN'T SWORN EARLIER, DO YOU MIND IF I, IF I SWEAR YOU IN VERY QUICKLY, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. SO THIS, THIS IS ADDRESSED TO, TO, UM, MRS. UH, RHODES AND, UH, CLEMENS, UH, DO YOU, UH, BOTH, UH, SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, [00:45:01] PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO. I DO. I DO. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND, UH, WERE YOU BOTH PLANNING TO SPEAK OR WOULD ONE OF YOU LIKE TO TAKE THE LEAD? HOWEVER YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT? I'LL DEFER TO YOU. SMOKE CAN TAKE CARE I'M MISSING. SO, UM, THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN, UM, THE JUDGE HAS MADE THE DECISION AND FORCED TO SELL TO THE PROPERTY. UM, SO UNFORTUNATELY, UM, UM, THE AUNT PASSED AWAY, SO NOW THEY'RE HANDING DOWN, THEY, THEY'RE TAKING IT BACK TO COURT AND THEY, UM, GIVEN, UH, FINDING OUT THE ERRORS HER SO WE CAN, UM, THEN PROPERTY ON THE MARKET ITSELF. BUT I CAN'T SELL IT UNTIL THEY, UM, DETERMINE WHO'S THE HEIRS OF THE AUNT AND THEN THE PROPERTY CAN SOLD IT. SO THE PROPERTY PROBABLY MOST LIKELY BE SOLD BEFORE Y'ALL EVEN TEAR DOWN. 'CAUSE I THINK Y'ALL ARE BEHIND ON RIPPING DOWN STREET. OKAY. AND, AND AM I, I'M SPEAKING WITH MR. RHODES, IS THAT RIGHT? YES. OKAY. SO MR. RHODES, UM, DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION OR MORE SPECIFICALLY, DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED ORDER THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS EVENING? UH, NO. I MEAN, IF THEY COULD JUST WAIT ON, ON RIPPING IT DOWN, IT, I MEAN, THAT'LL SAVE Y'ALL, YOU KNOW, IF Y'ALL COULD JUST WAIT 'CAUSE IT'LL BE SOLD AND SOMEBODY ELSE WILL DO THAT INSTEAD OF Y'ALL DOING IT. HOW MUCH TIME WERE YOU, WERE YOU SEEKING? UH, I WOULD SAY AT LEAST 60 DAYS. 60 DAYS, OKAY. UM, SO LET ME DO THIS. I DIDN'T MEAN TO, UH, I I'M KIND OF GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF. I'M GETTING INTO THE, THE QUESTION AND ANSWER STAGE HERE. AND, AND ORDINARILY THIS IS STILL, UH, THIS PART OF THE HEARING IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SORT OF MAKE WHATEVER AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE. IS THERE, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU, YOU'D LIKE THIS COMMISSION TO KNOW IN PARTICULAR? UH, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY YOU, YOU TOLD US ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE, OF THE, UM, THE, THE COURT CASE. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO KNOW OR DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR, FOR THE CITY? NO, I, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY. I JUST WANTED TO LET Y'ALL KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. SO, UH, WHAT I'LL DO AT THIS TIME IS, UH, OPEN THE FLOOR TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IN CASE ANY OF THEM HAVE, HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU OR MR. CLEMONS, UH, COMMISSIONERS. OKAY. SO, UH, AT THIS TIME I'D ASK YOU TO JUST SIT TIGHT. FEEL FREE TO MUTE YOUR PHONE IF YOU'D LIKE. BUT, UM, STICK AROUND IN CASE WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS AS OUR DISCUSSION, UH, DEVELOPS IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. UH, SO THANK YOU MR. RHODES. THANK YOU MR. CLEMENS. UH, THE COMMISSIONER. DOES ANYONE CARE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ANY, UH, OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION FROM VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL TO CLOSE. UH, IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, HEARING NO OPPOSITION, UH, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. WE'LL MOVE ON TO MOTIONS AND DISCUSSION. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION? VICE CAMPBELL, I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH THE CHANGE THAT 45 DAYS BE CHANGED TO 60 DAYS AND THE 46TH DAY BE CHANGED TO THE 61ST. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION OF VICE CHAIR, UH, CAMPBELL TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER MODIFIED TO MAKE IT A A 60 DAY, UH, COMPLIANCE PERIOD IS OPPOSED TO 45. UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. COMM SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TVI. IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I WILL, UM, RECOGNIZE, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL IF YOU CARE TO OPEN. IT SEEMS LIKE THE PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A DEMOLITION ORDER PER SE. THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR MORE TIME. I'M INCLINED TO GIVE IT TO THEM GIVEN THAT IT SEEMS PERFECTLY IN LINE WITH WHAT THEY'D LIKE TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, PROPERTY DISPUTES CAN TAKE A WHILE TO JUST GET RESOLVED. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE JUST WAITING FOR MORE TIME TO GET THE SALE DONE AND THAT SEEMS LIKE A PERFECTLY SUITABLE OUTCOME FOR ALL OF US. OKAY, THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. UH, HEARING NONE? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. I THINK THAT ON, ON SOME LEVEL, THE ADDITIONAL TIME PROBABLY ISN'T STRICTLY NECESSARY BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT ALWAYS TAKES, TAKES A WHILE FOR, FOR THESE THINGS TO GET AROUND TO, TO DEMOLITION ANYWAY. BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, I, I CAN'T SEE WHERE IT DOES ANY HARM. UH, SO, UH, WITH THAT IN MIND, UH, HEARING NO FURTHER, UH, DISCUSSION, I'LL [00:50:01] GO AHEAD AND PUT THE QUESTION TO THE BODY AND I'LL BEGIN WITH COMMISSIONER VIC. AYE. COMMISSIONER TAM AYE. COMMISSIONER LOCKHART AYE. COMMISSIONER OLUGO AYE. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. AYE UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL AYE. CHAIR VOTES AYE. THERE BEING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS. THE, UH, MOTION IS ADOPTED AND, UH, WITH THAT, UM, SO, UH, MR. CLEMENS, MR. RHODES, UH, WE WON'T NEED ANYTHING MORE FROM YOU THIS EVENING. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION, THE ORDER WILL BE MAILED. UH, AND, UH, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION THIS EVENING. IT'S APPRECIATED. UM, I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE REGULAR ORDER AND SO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM BEFORE WE TOOK FIVE, NUMBER FIVE UP OUT OF ORDER WAS ITEM NUMBER FOUR [4. Case Number: CL 2024-136124] CONCERNING PROPERTY AT SOUTH HILL CIRCLE. AND I WILL, UH, RECOGNIZE MS. ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 24 1 3 6 1 2 4 AND IS REGARDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 34 13 SOUTH HILL CIRCLE. THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE BLUE GRAY BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE. THIS CASE IS REGARDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. THE PROPERTY IS A HOMESTEAD. THE CASE WAS OPENED IN OCTOBER, 2023 AS THE RESULT OF A COMPLAINT. ALTHOUGH PERMITS WERE SECURED, SECURED FOR THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE AND SUBSEQUENT REMODEL, THERE WERE, THERE ARE NO ACTIVE TRADE PERMITS TO DEAL WITH THE CURRENT DEFICIENCIES. CONDITIONS ARE CONSIDERED UNSAFE AND SUBSTANDARD AND REQUIRE REPAIR. IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY. A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICES OF HEARING FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING, PROOFS OF MAILING AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS. AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO C AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INSPECTOR BELINDA NOBLES IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED. INSPECTOR NOBLES, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS CASE. I'M INSPECTOR BELINDA NOBLES, UH, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CODE COMPLIANCE. UH, THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. A 3 1 1 COMPLAINT FOR THE VACANT PROPERTY AT 34 13 SOUTH HILL CIRCLE WAS RECEIVED ON OCTOBER 27TH, 2023. THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND THE HOME IS ABOUT A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FROM LAKE AUSTIN. I INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AND DOCUMENTED THE VIOLATIONS LISTED IN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION. THE NOTICE CITE SEVERAL VIOLATIONS AND WAS SENT BY CERTIFIED MAIL TO THE OWNER ON OCTOBER 27TH, 2023. THE OWNER WAS IDENTIFIED IN TRAVIS COUNTY APPRAISAL RECORDS AND VERIFIED ON TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE FILINGS. THE CERTIFIED MAIL WAS SIGNED ON NOVEMBER 4TH, 2023 AND CODE DID NOT RECEIVE A REPLY FROM THE OWNER SINCE THE CASE HAS BEEN OPEN. I PERIODICALLY INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AND DOCUMENTED THE NON-COMPLIANCE. IN APRIL OF 2024, I HAD A CITY CONTRACTOR BATH THE TALL GRASS AND WEEDS ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. FURTHER ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO ESTABLISH CONTACT WITH THE OWNER AND I RECEIVED NO REPLY. THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS REVISED AND RESENT ON AUGUST OF 2024 AND THE NOTICE WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON AUGUST 2ND, 2024. I'LL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED. EXHIBIT TWO A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE VACANT CONSTRUCTION SITE WITH OVERGROWN WEEDS, PILES OF BRUSH AND DEBRIS, WHICH VIOLATES PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE OF 3 0 1 0.3 FOR VACANT STRUCTURES AND LAND. UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS PROPERLY SECURED THE PROPERTY BUT HAS NEGLECTED AND FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, WHICH HAS CAUSED AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE. ALSO, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THERE'S THE REMAINING OF THE WALL FRAMING AND SOME BEAMS INSIDE OF THE VACANT LOT. NEXT EXHIBIT EXHIBIT TWO B IS A CLOSER VIEW OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE PARTIALLY DEMO DEMO DEMOLITION, SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE, SEVERELY WEATHER DAMAGE FROM BEING EXPOSED TO THE ELEMENTS. THE REMAINING WALLS, FRAMING AND BEAMS HAVE DETERIORATED AND ARE CONTINUED TO BE DAMAGED TO THE DEGREE THAT IT MAY PRO PROVIDE INACCURATE STRUCTURAL SUPPORT WHICH VIOLATES THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE ONE 11.5 0.3 FOR UNSAFE STRUCTURES BESIDES THE STRUCTURAL VIOLATIONS, I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT YOU TAKE NOTE THAT THE TALL WEEDS, PILES OF TREE BRUSH AND DEBRIS THAT HAS BEEN NEGLECTED BY THE OWNER, WHICH [00:55:01] POSES A POSSIBLE ROAD IN HARBRIDGE AND OTHER ISSUES FOR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS. NEXT EXHIBIT AND EXHIBIT TWO C IS JUST A CLOSE VIEW OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE ELECTRICAL METER HAS BEEN PULLED, UM, AND IS NEAR, UM, THE REMAINING OF THE DETERIORATED FRAMING. UM, YOU CAN ALSO SEE WHERE THE WOOD OF THE FRAMING IS DAMAGED AND DETERIORATING BEING EXPOSED TO THE WHERE ELEMENTS, UH, WHICH ALSO VIOLATES THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE OF ONE 11.1 0.5 FOR UNSAFE STRUCTURES. UM, AND THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS. BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE WITH UNSAFE AND SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. STAFF ASK THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO C. STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED. A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. B CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B TWO. ON THE 46TH DAY. IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL. AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION. OKAY, THANK YOU MS. ALI. AT THIS TIME, UH, WITHOUT OBJECTION I'LL ADMIT EXHIBITS UH, ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO C. UH, IS THERE OBJECTION, HEARING NONE. THE EXHIBITS ARE ADMITTED AND I WILL NOW, UH, RECOGNIZE AS IT, UH, FORGIVE ME. IS IT MR. STALEY STALEY IF THE LIGHT IS ON? YEAH, THAT'S THE ONE. THERE YOU GO. ALRIGHT. UM, YES, IT'S MR. STALEY. OKAY. AND, UH, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, UH, YOU WERE SWORN EARLIER, SIR. I WAS. OKAY, VERY GOOD. UM, SO, UH, AT YOUR OPTION YOU'RE FREE TO, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR, UM, INSPECTOR NOBLES OR IF YOU'D JUST LIKE TO BEGIN YOUR PRESENTATION, JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THE NATURE OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY AND, AND TAKE IT FROM THERE. SURE. UNFORTUNATELY JAMES COULD NOT MAKE IT THIS EVENING. UM, I'M JUST HERE ON HIS BEHALF. UH, HE WANTED TO APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONDITION OF THE SITE. HE HAD SOME UNFORTUNATE EVENTS HAPPEN THAT HAS CAUSED HIS CONSTRUCTION TO DELAY. UM, I'M GONNA BE HELPING HIM THROUGH THE PROCESS, UM, OF REQUIRING THE PERMITS. IT WAS ORIGINALLY UNDER A RENOVATION PERMIT AND THAT'S WHY THE EXISTING STRUCTURE IS STILL PARTIALLY THERE. OBVIOUSLY THOSE PERMITS HAVE EXPIRED NOW, SO HE'LL BE INCLINED TO GO AHEAD AND REMOVE ALL VERTICAL STRUCTURE AND JUST LEAVE THE SLAB AND HE WILL, UM, REMOVE ANY OTHER DEBRIS ON THE SIDE AND OF COURSE ALL THE, ALL THE VEGETATION. UM, I'LL MAKE SURE HE HAS THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING SECURED AND UM, AND I BELIEVE HE'S GOING TO LOOK AT SOME DIFFERENT OPTIONS AT THAT POINT. I DON'T THINK HE'S GONNA MOVE FORWARD WITH A, WITH A PROJECT AT THIS AT THIS TIME. SO WHETHER IT'S A SALE OR UM, OR A HOLD, I GOTTA FIGURE THAT OUT BEFORE HIM. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU SIR. AND JUST, UH, VERY QUICKLY, DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, UM, REQUESTS OR ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED ORDER? NO, HE JUST, HE, AGAIN, HE WAS FINALLY NOTIFIED. I GUESS HE'D BEEN MOVING AROUND. THIS WAS HIS HOMESTEAD AND THEN I GUESS THEY, UH, IF THIS NOTICE FINALLY MADE IT TO HIS OFFICE DOWNTOWN, SO HE JUST RECEIVED IT. UM, SO I'M JUST HERE TO SAY HE JUST WANTED ME TO SAY, HEY, HE APOLOGIZE. HE JUST HAD NOTICED HE WAS IN A COUPLE RENTALS AND THE CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND COST DELAYS AND EVERYTHING ELSE JUST HAD HIM BOUNCE AROUND A LITTLE BIT. SO I'M JUST HERE 'CAUSE HE WANTED TO HAVE SOME REPRESENTATION. OKAY. AND, UM, WE UNDERSTAND THE TIMELINE AT 45 DAYS AGAIN TO GET A PERMIT. AND IS THAT A, IS IT A, IS IT AN ACTUAL AND ANOTHER DEMO PERMIT THAT WE'RE GONNA BE GETTING? IS THAT THE REQUEST FROM YOU? WELL, SO THE, THE, THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IS TO, UH, CORRECT, UH, VIOLATIONS, BUT DEMOLITION HAS THAT EFFECT, YOU KNOW. OKAY. SO I DON'T HAVE TO GO GET ANOTHER PERMIT 'CAUSE THERE ALREADY WAS A DEMO PERMIT. I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THE SITE'S BEEN CLEARED AND THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AND THEN CALL IN FOR ANOTHER INSPECTION. I, I, AS YOU INFLECTED THAT, I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS A QUESTION OR A, A STATEMENT. OH, I GUESS I'M JUST, I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO ASK FOR SOME GUIDANCE HERE SINCE THIS IS MY FIRST I SEE. SO I, I, ON THAT [01:00:01] QUESTION, I WOULD DIRECT THAT QUESTION TO THE, TO THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVES. SURE. DO YOU, UH, INSPECTOR NOBLES OR WHOEVER CARE TO FIELD IT? YEP. SINCE THE PERMIT IS CURRENTLY EXPIRED, UM, HE COULD, THE OWNER COULD EITHER REACTIVATE THE EXPIRED PERMIT, UM, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND, UM, JUST GETTING A BUILDING PERMIT OR POSSIBLY ASKING THE PLAN REVIEWER THE PROCESS ON GETTING THE DEMOLITION PERMIT TO DEMO THE CURRENT STRUCTURE. UM, ONCE THAT'S ACTIVATED, THAT WOULD CLEAR THAT VIOLATION FOR, UM, AS FAR AS THE BUILDING PERMIT GOES. OKAY. THANK YOU. INSPECTOR, IS THAT, IS THAT RESPONSIVE MR. STALEY? IS THAT, THAT SOUNDS, I JUST, SO THE, I THINK THE, THE PREVIOUS PERMIT IS EXPIRED FOR THE DEMO, EVEN THOUGH DEMO WAS COMPLETE TO THE ORIGINAL. OKAY. YEAH, YOU JUST BASICALLY REACTIVATE THE EXPIRED PERMIT. OKAY. SO, UM, THANK YOU INSPECTOR. SO MR. STICKLEY, IF THAT, UH, CONCLUDES YOUR SORT OF AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION TO US THIS EVENING, I'LL ASK, UM, IF YOU, UH, JUST WANNA SIT TIGHT FOR A MOMENT IN CASE WE HAVE QUESTIONS. SURE. I'M GONNA OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE OWNER, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY? YES, UH, JAMES SUMMATION. OH YEAH, CERTAINLY. UH, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, ENTERTAIN SUMMATION NOW, INSPECTOR, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ IT. IT'S BASICALLY JUST CONFIRM WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED ABOUT THE EXPIRED PERMIT. UM, BUT, UH, THE PROPERTY HAS HAD A 2022 BUILDING PERMIT FOR REMODELING THE HOME, WHICH IS NOW EXPIRED. UM, AND THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED TO THE CURRENT OWNER AND THE INCOMPLETE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING IS FROM THE OWNER'S PARTIAL DEMOLITION. SO CODE IS REQUESTING THAT THE OWNER COMPLETES THE PROJECT, UM, TO MAKE THE PROPERTY COMPLIANT OR AGAIN, AS WE STATED, JUST REACTIVATE THAT EXPIRED PERMIT. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, INSPECTOR. YOU'RE WELCOME. SO COMMISSIONERS, ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER SIDE? OKAY, SO HEARING NONE, UH, MR. STICKLEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY SUMMATION OR, UH, I'M FINE, THANK YOU. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE, UH, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. UH, RECOGNIZING. SO MOVED, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL MOVES TO CLOSE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. UH, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. HEARING NONE. THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS NOW CLOSED, AND I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY, UH, SUBSTANTIVE MOTIONS. OH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT IN CONCLUSION OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY. OKAY, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS MOVES TO ADOPT SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART HAS SECONDED AND I WILL RECOGNIZE, UH, AS THE AUTHOR, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS WITH ANY, UH, OPENING DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. NO COMMENT. OKAY. UH, ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. UH, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOT A CHANCE. I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND PUT IT TO THE, TO THE COMMISSION AND I'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER MVI. AYE. COMMISSIONER MVI? AYE. COMMISSIONER LOCKHART. AYE. AYE. COMMISSIONER OLUGO. AYE. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. AYE. VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL AYE. CHAIR VOTES? AYE. THERE BEING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS. THE, UH, CITY'S, UH, RECOMMENDED ORDER IS ADOPTED. UM, SO MR. STALEY, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING. WE APPRECIATE IT. AND THE ORDER WILL BE MAILED TO THE, UH, ADDRESS OF RECORD FOR THE OWNER AND, UH, JUST, UH, KEEP IN TOUCH WITH, UH, UH, INSPECTOR NOBLES IF, UH, UH, QUESTIONS EMERGE GOING FORWARD. SO, THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU INSPECTOR. SO WE'LL MOVE ON [6. Case Number: CL 2016-056078] TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, WHICH I THINK WE'RE INTO RETURNING CASES NOW. I SHOW ITEM NUMBER SIX, UH, CONCERNING THE PROPERTY ON LEE HILL DRIVE AND, UH, LEE HILL DRIVE. YEAH, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY IN PERSON REGISTERED FOR IT. WE MIGHT HAVE SOMEONE ON THE PHONE. WE DID HAVE SOMEONE THAT WAS PLANNING TO ATTEND. YOU KNOW WHAT I NO, NOT FOR LEE HILL. NO, WE DID NOT. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE ATTENDING. MELANIE, I, I APOLOGIZE. I'M SHOWING THAT NO ONE IS REGISTERED ON THE PHONE EITHER, SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THAT'S CORRECT. THAT BEING THE CASE. LET'S, LET'S PUSH THIS ONE TO THE END. I HATE THEM. MAKE FOLKS WAIT, IF THERE'S, SORRY. THAT'S FINE. YEAH, IT'S, IF THERE'S NO ONE HERE FOR THAT ONE, WE SHOULD MOVE ON TO. LET'S GO [7. Case Numbers: CL 2020-086214, CL 2020-086201 and CL 2020-086171] WITH NUMBER SEVEN. I SHOW WE HAVE AT LEAST, UM, OKAY. TWO, TWO PEOPLE HERE IN PERSON TO TALK ABOUT. NUMBER SEVEN. OKAY. I'LL GIVE THEM A MINUTE TO COME DOWN FRONT. AND THEN, UM, THIS IS THE, UM, NELMS DRIVE. YES. AND, UM, OKAY. YEP. GIMME ONE SECOND. OKAY. YOU, ARE YOU READY FOR [01:05:01] ME TO BEGIN? SURE. UH, WELL, LET ME, LEMME JUST MAKE, LEMME JUST MAKE SURE, LEMME JUST, I'M SORRY, MELANIE. UH, I WANT TO INTRODUCE MY WITNESSES FIRST. UH, UH, WOULD Y'ALL CARE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELVES VERY BRIEFLY? OH, SORRY. GOOD EVENING. I'M JOHN LAWSON. JOHN LAWSON. I'M FROM HUSCH BLACKWELL. LLP. WE REPRESENT CNC AUSTIN LIGHTS. OKAY. AND THEN IS THIS, UM, SORRY, WHO'S WITH YOU? ARE YOU BOTH SPEAKING? YES, SIR. I'M RACI HADDA. I REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE ARE FROM HUSH BLACKWELL LAW FIRM. OKAY. OKAY. YES, SIR. UM, AND, UH, YOU WERE BOTH SWORN? YES, WE WERE. OKAY, VERY GOOD. SO NOW I WILL TURN TO, UH, CODE REVIEW ANALYST, ALLIE, TO, TO OPEN ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. ON THE AGENDA IS A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1704 NELMS DRIVE AND IS REGARDING BUILDINGS 10 11 AND 22, ALSO KNOWN AS SUNRISE BLUFFS APARTMENTS. THE CASE NUMBERS ARE CL 2 2 0 8 6 2 4 CL 20 28 6 2 1, AND CL 20 28 6 7 1 3 BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ORDERS WERE ISSUED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN JUNE, 2020. THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS ACHIEVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDERS AND NOW WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING RELIEF FOR THE ACCRUED PENALTIES. THE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GOLD BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THESE CASES. THESE CASES ARE ABOUT A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY CURRENTLY IN THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM. ORDERS WERE ISSUED IN THE THREE CASES FOR REPAIR WITHIN 45 DAYS, WITH A PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK BEGINNING ON THE 46 DAY. IF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ACHIEVED, THE TOTAL PENALTIES AS OF TODAY'S DATE ARE $14,447 AND 32 CENTS, $14,447 32 CENTS, AND $31,224 AND 42 CENTS ON THREE ORDERS FOR A COMBINED TOTAL OF $60,119 AND 6 CENTS, WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST ACCRUED FROM THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE DATE OF TODAY'S MEETING. THESE HAVE BEEN HIGH COMPLEXITY CASES FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING, THE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO, A THROUGH TWO C3 AND FOUR A THROUGH FOUR C FIVE AND SIX A THROUGH SIX C AND EXHIBIT AND EXHIBIT SEVEN, WHICH CONSISTS OF AN UPDATED COMPLAINING CASE HISTORY FOR EACH CASE. A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY NOTICES FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS. THE RECORDED BSC ORDERS ISSUED JUNE 24TH, 2020 IN CORRESPONDING PENALTY STATEMENTS AND EXHIBIT EIGHT, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS. AND THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION CODE INSPECTOR ERIC FINN IS HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THE CORRECTED VIOLATIONS AND TIMELINE FOR COMPLIANCE. AND WE'LL PRESENT SOME COMPLIANCE PHOTOS. CODE INSPECTOR FINN, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ERIC FAN AND I'M A CODE INSPECTOR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CODE COMPLIANCE. THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A MO COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1 7 0 4 NIMS DRIVE CONCERNING BUILDINGS 10, 11 AND 22. ACCORDING TO THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, THE OWNER OF RECORD WAS IDENTIFIED AS CNC AUSTIN LIGHTS, LP SINCE MARCH OF 2019, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN REGISTERED AS PART OF THE RENTAL REG REGISTRATION PROGRAM FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS, WHICH WAS ASSIGNED TO INSPECTOR PHILLIP BOSLEY ON JULY 29TH, EXCUSE ME. ON JULY 29TH, 2024, INSPECTOR BOSLEY CONDUCTED A PERIODIC INSPECTION AT THIS PROPERTY AND OBSERVE STRUCTURAL OR BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING STRUCTURES. UH, THROUGHOUT THIS PROPERTY, NOTICES A VIOLATION WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ACCORDINGLY, ACCORDINGLY, BY CERTIFIED MAIL ON OR ABOUT, UH, JULY 31ST, 2024, DURING OCTOBER OF 2024, UH, 1 7 0 4 NIMS DRIVES WAS, WAS REASSIGNED TO CODE INSPECTOR ERIC FINN. UH, SINCE THAT TIME, I, I HAVE CONDUCTED, UH, FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS AT BUILDINGS 10 AND 11. UH, DURING THOSE INSPECTIONS, UH, VIOLATIONS THAT STILL WERE PRESENT WERE, UH, DETERIORATOR DAMAGED SERVICES TO EXTERIOR SOFFIT CEILING SOFFITS GUARDRAILS THAT WERE NOT FIRMLY FASTENED TO THE EXTERIOR WALL AND MULTIPLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, UH, THAT WERE MISSING TO THE EXTERIOR WALKWAYS AT CERTAIN BUILDINGS. [01:10:04] HOWEVER, SINCE DECEMBER THE 12TH OF 2024, THESE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN, UH, REPAIRED OR CORRECTED. I'LL NOW PROCEED TO MY PHOTO PRESENTATION OF BUILDINGS 10, 11 AND 22 AT THIS PROPERTY. THE FIRST EXHIBIT TAKING ON JULY THE 16TH OF 2019 IS JUST A CONTEXTUAL VIEW OF THE INTEREST OF THE PROPERTY, UH, AT, BY THE LEASING OFFICE AT 17 0 4 NIMS DRIVE. NEXT EXHIBIT, UH, THIS EXHIBIT IS JUST VERIFYING THAT THE PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED AS 1 7 0 4 NIMS DRIVE. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW OF BUILDING 10 AT THIS PROPERTY. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS JUST A VIEW IDENTIFYING UNIT 10 11 AT THIS PROPERTY OF BUILDING 10. NEXT, EXHIBIT IT. THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW SHOWING THE REAR PATIO OF THAT SAME UNIT. YOU WILL NOTE THE OPEN HOLE TO THE, UH, EXTERIOR CEILING AND THE CRACKING TO THE TRIM THERE, WHICH IS, UH, A HAZARD AND OR SAFETY ISSUE THAT MAY ALLOW CRITTERS OR WHATNOT TO GET UP, UH, TO THE CEILING OR ITEMS MAY FALL OUT. NEXT EXHIBIT, THIS IS JUST A CLOSEUP SHOWING, UH, THAT THE TRIM IS LOOSE AND SHOWING THE EXPOSED AREA, UH, TO THE CEILING AT THIS PATIO. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW VERIFYING BUILDING 11 AT THIS PROPERTY. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS IS A, AN EXTERIOR, UH, DISCONNECT BOX, UH, WITH EXPOSED ELECTRICAL WIRING. THERE'S MISSING AN INTERIOR SAFETY DOOR AND THE COVER DOOR IS NOT SECURE TO PREVENT ACCESS TO, UH, ELECTRICAL WIRING. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS IS JUST VERIFYING UNIT 1122 AT BUILDING 11. NEXT EXHIBIT, UH, NEAR UNIT, UH, 1122. THERE WAS, UH, WAS NEST UNDER THE STAIRWAY LOCATED AS DISPLAYED RATHER IN THIS PHOTO. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS EXHIBIT JUST VERIFIES UNIT, UH, 1113 AT BUILDING 11. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS PHOTO IS JUST A SHOW CLOSEUP SHOWING, UH, TRIM BOARD THAT IS LOOSE AND A HOLE TO THE, UH, EXTERIOR SIDING BY THE PATIO LOCATED AT THIS APARTMENT UNIT. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS EXHIBIT IS, UM, THE REAR PATIO OF THE SAME UNIT, UH, JUST SHOWING, UH, STILL MORE, THERE'S PEELING MATERIAL FROM THE CEILING AND APPEARS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF TRIM REMOVED, UM, RIGHT THERE TOWARDS THE POST NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CLOSEUP OF AN EXTERIOR DRY EXHAUST EVENT THAT IS LOOSE AND NOT PROPERLY FASTEN TO THE EXTERIOR WALL AT BUILDING 11. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW VERIFYING BUILDING 22 AT THIS PROPERTY. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS EXHIBIT IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW SHOWING THE STAIRS WITH, UH, CRACKS AND BREAKS TO THE LANDING OF THE STAIRCASE THERE. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS EXHIBIT IS A CLOSEUP SHOWING THE, THAT THE, UH, OUTDOOR RECEPTACLE IS LOOSE FROM THE WALL, UH, WITH THE EXPOSED WIRING BEHIND IT. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS EXHIBIT IS SHOWING A DOWNSPOUT THAT'S MISSING, THAT IS MISSING IN LOWER PARTS TO A STAIRWAY TOWARDS THE REAR OF, UH, BUILDING 22. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CLOSEUP VIEW SHOWING A CRACK IN THE STAIRWAY, UM, AT BUILDING 22 TOWARDS THE, UH, PARKING LOT. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A PIECE OF, UH, THIS PHOTO DISPLAYS A CRACK OR MISSING PIECE, UH, TO THE STEP AT BUILDING 22 IN THE SAME AREA. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW SHOWING A DRY VENT, ALTHOUGH IT IS, UM, PRETTY MUCH HARD TO SEE, THERE'S NOT A FLAP, UH, TO THE, UH, DRY VENT THERE. THE NEXT EXHIBIT, UH, THIS EXHIBIT DISPLAYS, UH, SOMEWHAT OF A REPAIR. HOWEVER, THERE'S STILL CRACKING TO THE EXTERIOR CEILING SOFFIT, UH, TO THE STAIRCASE AT BUILDING 22. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS SHOWING THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT SAME STAIRCASE AT BUILDING 22, WHERE THE DOWNSPOUT IS MISSING THE LOWER HALF ALONG THE EDGE OF THE STAIRCASE THERE. NEXT EXHIBIT, [01:15:02] THIS IS JUST A CLOSEUP VIEW, VERIFYING BUILDING 10 AGAIN AT THIS PROPERTY. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS IDENTIFIED UNIT 10 11 AT THIS PROPERTY NEXT EXHIBIT. AND THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN NOVEMBER THE 14TH OF 2024. DURING A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION, UH, THIS SHOWS THE REAR PATIO OF THE SAME UNIT WHERE THERE WAS A REPAIR THAT WAS COMPLETED. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS JUST A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE SAME SHOWING THAT THE REPAIR WAS COMPLETED, UM, WHERE THE CEILING IS NO LONGER UH, EXPOSED OR, UH, CRACKED OR MISSING MATERIAL. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW OF BUILDING 10 TAKEN ON NOVEMBER THE 14TH OF 2024 AT THIS PROPERTY. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS DISPLAY IS THE SAME, UH, EXTERIOR DISCONNECT BOXES THAT NOW HAVE, UH, SCREWS ON THE SIDE SECURING THE COVER DOOR AS WELL AS THE ZIP TIE TO PREVENT ACCESS, UH, TO THE ELECTRICAL WIRES IN THESE BOXES. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS JUST VERIFYING UNIT 1122 AT THIS PROPERTY NEXT EXHIBIT. AND IN THIS PHOTO, THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW SHOWING THE STAIRWAY AND UNDERNEATH THE STAIRWAY THERE IS NO LONGER A WAS NEST, UH, BEING OBSERVED AT THIS LOCATION. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CLOSER VIEW VERIFYING UNIT 1113 AT BUILDING 11 OF THIS PROPERTY. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW SHOWING THE REAR PATIO WHERE REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED TO THE EXTERIOR CEILING. UM, NEXT EXHIBIT, AND THIS IS JUST A CONTEXTUAL VIEW SHOWING THAT MORE EXTERIOR EXHAUST DRIVE VENTS WERE, UH, PROPERLY INSTALLED AND OR SEALED, UH, AND PROPERLY ATTACHED TO THE EXTERIOR WALL AT BUILDING 11 OF THIS PROPERTY. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW, AGAIN, SHOWING BUILDING 22 ON NOVEMBER THE 14TH OF 2024. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW SHOWING THAT THERE'S NO LONGER ANY, UH, CRACKS OR BREAKS TO THE LANDING THERE OF THE STAIRWAY TOWARDS THE PARKING LOT. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW SHOWING THE PREVIOUS OUTDOOR, UH, RECEPTACLE THAT IS NOW PROPERLY FASTENED TO THE EXTERIOR WALL AT BUILDING 22. NEXT EXHIBIT. UM, THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW SHOWING THE STAIRWAY AGAIN. UH, ALTHOUGH THERE'S, THERE ARE CRACKS, UH, IN THE CONCRETE OF THESE STEPS, UH, THE STEPS, UH, REMAIN STABLE. NEXT EXHIBIT. AND THIS IS JUST, UH, ANOTHER VIEW OF, UH, EXTERIOR DRIVE VENTS, UH, TAKEN AT BUILDING 22 ON SEPTEMBER THE SIXTH OF 2019, UH, SHOWING THAT THESE WERE REPAIRED. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS THE, UH, EXTERIOR CEILING SOFFIT, UH, ABOVE THE STAIRCASE TO BUILDING 22, SHOWING THE SAME CONDITION. UH, ALTHOUGH THERE'S A PIECE, UH, REPLACED THERE, UH, THERE'S STILL CRACKING MATERIAL, UH, TO THAT, UM, EXTERIOR CEILING SOFFIT THERE. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS SHOWS THAT THE DOWNSPOUTS, THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE DOWNSPOUTS, UH, WERE PLACED TO THE LOWER HALF AT BUILDING 22. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION PEN. PENDING YOUR QUESTIONS. STAFF ASKS THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT SEVEN, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. AND EXHIBIT EIGHT, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS. STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER. THE FOLLOWING, AFFIRM THE THREE CIVIL PENALTIES OF $14,447 AND 32 CENTS, $14,447 32 CENTS, AND $31,224 AND 42 CENTS FROM EACH ORDER ASSESSED FROM THE ORDERS ISSUED JUNE 24TH, 2020 TRV 20 21 8 8 8 5 T RV 2 20 0 1 1 8 8 8 6, AND T RV 20 21, 8 8 8 7 FOR A COMBINED TOTAL OF $60,119 AND 6 CENTS. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF THE COMBINED TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT OF $60,119 AND 6 CENTS [01:20:01] IS REDUCED, ALLOW 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE AMENDED ORDER IS MAILED TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY IN FULL AT THE REDUCED AMOUNT. AND ON THE 31ST DAY, IF FROM THE DATE THE AMENDED ORDER IS MAILED, IF THE REDUCED PENALTY AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL REINSTATE, THE UNPAID PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL COMBINED PENALTY AMOUNT OF 60,100 $119 AND 6 CENTS INTEREST SHALL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL. AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRE PRESENTATION. OKAY, UH, UH, THANK YOU, MS. ALI. SO AT THIS TIME, IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, UM, WE HAVE THE CITY'S EXHIBITS, UH, SEVEN AND EIGHT. I ALSO SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, HAS, UH, A, UH, LOOKS LIKE ABOUT A, IT'S IN YOUR READERS A FIVE OR SIX PAGE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. UH, WELL MAYBE AN EIGHT PAGE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF 49 PAGES OF EXHIBITS. AND, UH, SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, UH, OR NO DESIRE TO DIVIDE THE QUESTION, I'M JUST GONNA GO AHEAD AND ADMIT ALL OF THOSE EXHIBITS. SO EXHIBIT SEVEN AND EIGHT AND THE, UH, PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVES EXHIBITS. IS THERE OBJECTION, UH, HEARING NONE, THE EXHIBITS ARE ALL ADMITTED. I WILL NOW PIVOT TO THE PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVES AND RECOGNIZE MS. HADDAD AND MR. UH, LAWSON. UH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR INSPECTOR FINN OR FOR THE CITY THAT YOU CAN BEGIN WITH THOSE, OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO JUST GO RIGHT INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION, YOU'LL HAVE THE GREATER OF FIVE MINUTES OR HOWEVER LONG THEY TOOK. I, I KNOW JAMES IS TRACKING IT, SO YOU CAN PROCEED AS AS YOU WOULD. THANK YOU. UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. UM, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I JUST WAS HAPPY TO SEE IS THAT THERE WERE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT THESE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CURED. SO I THINK THAT'S THE POSITIVE STEP HERE. UM, I REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER, CNC, UM, AUSTIN LIGHTS, AND WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TRY TO JUST CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE CITY GOING FORWARD. UM, I WANNA JUST TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT, AND MY POWERPOINT IS UP THERE FOR YOU AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO FLIP THE SLIDES, BUT YOU ALL WILL DO THAT. UM, SUNRISE BLUFFS IS A APARTMENT COMPLEX IN AUSTIN, TEXAS ON NIMS DRIVE, AND IT'S BASICALLY AN A, AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT RENTS OUT ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF UNITS. AND THEY'RE AT ABOUT A 74% OCCUPANCY. A GREAT MAJORITY OF THEIR UNITS ARE BELOW MARKET. AND SO I WOULDN'T CALL THEM NECESSARILY DEEMED IN, IN CITY OF AUSTIN TERMS AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX PER SE, BUT THEY ARE PROVIDING SIGNIFICANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. UM, BY WAY OF BACKGROUND FOR YOU, THE KEY ISSUES IN THIS CASE, AND WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR SOME RECONSIDERATION AND SOME RELIEF ON THE PENALTY FEES, OUR CLIENT, LET ME JUST SAY, IS VERY WILLING TO PAY PENALTIES IMMEDIATELY IF WE CAN WORK WITH YOU ALL ON SOMEWHAT OF A REDUCTION. SO AS THAT WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO PUT A 30 DAY DEADLINE ON THAT AND THEN REINSTATE THE FEE, IF IT'S NOT PAID, WE WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT. UM, THAT BEING SAID, SOME OF THE BOTTLENECK ISSUES ARE IN OUR POWERPOINT, BUT ESSENTIALLY WE HAVE A SITUATION HERE WHERE IN 2019 JULY THAT THERE WERE THREE NOTICES SENT FOR THESE VIOLATIONS. AND ON JU JULY 1ST, 2020, THE BSC ORDERS WERE ISSUED AND THEY GAVE US A 45 DAY DEADLINE TO CURE THE VIOLATIONS. 'CAUSE THE VIOLATIONS STILL HADN'T BEEN CURED. IT SEEMS TO BE THAT ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEMS HERE WAS THAT THERE WAS A BOTTLENECK ON OBTAINING PERMITS. THERE WERE TWO BIG ISSUES, A BOTTLENECK ON OBTAINING PERMITS TO GET THE WORK COMPLETED. AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO COVID-19 THAT HIT WHEN THEY WERE PLANNING ON GETTING MAINTENANCE WORK DONE, WHICH REALLY PUT THEIR STAFF IN LIMBO ON PARALYZED. SO I'LL GET TO SORT OF THE, THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF THE TIMEFRAME. COULD WE GO FORWARD TWO SLIDES PLEASE? YES. THANK YOU. UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT, YES, I'M SORRY. TWO MORE SLIDES, PLEASE. YEAH, THANK YOU. UM, AND I'LL, I'LL ASK Y'ALL TO FLIP THE SLIDES. UM, ESSENTIALLY IF YOU COULD FLIP ONE MORE SLIDE. THANK YOU. SO THE PERMIT APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED IN AUTUMN OF 19, AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN REJECTED THE PERMIT APPLICATIONS, AND THAT WAS 12 3 20 19, 5 29, 20 20, AND 7, 9, 20 20. SO RIGHT AWAY, AFTER THE VIOLATIONS WERE ISSUED, OUR CLIENT OBTAINED DESIGN FIRM. THEY SUBMITTED PLANS AND THE APPLICATION FOR PERMITTING WAS SUBMITTED. AND THOSE WERE REJECTED ON THREE OCCASIONS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT'S A PRETTY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. WE DON'T EVER REALLY HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING WHY THEY WERE REJECTED IN 2020. AND SO FINALLY [01:25:01] THOUGH, PERMITS WERE GRANTED. OKAY? SO AT THE END OF THE DAY HERE, UM, IF YOU COULD FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE, IN ADDITION TO THAT, DURING THIS WAITING GAME, AND WHEN THEY STARTED MAKING THE REPAIRS, THERE WAS THE COVID-19 PARALYSIS. AND THEN IT WAS VERY HARD TO GET IN PEOPLE'S UNITS. IT WAS HARD TO HIRE MAINTENANCE PEOPLE. PEOPLE WERE IN LOCKDOWN. Y'ALL REMEMBER THAT? OKAY, I DON'T NEED TO GO INTO THE DETAILS OF THAT, BUT IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO HERE, WHAT HAD ENDS UP HAPPENING IS IN THE PROCESS OF THIS 2020 TIME PERIOD, THE COMMISSION ISSUED THESE ORDERS AND THEY GAVE A 45 DAY COMPLIANCE DEADLINE IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CURE THE VIOLATIONS. BUT IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AND REMEMBER, UM, THE, THE TIMELINE, THE REJECTIONS OF THE PERMITS BY THE CITY WAS WELL INTO THIS PERIOD. SO WHAT WAS HAPPENING WAS WE WERE GETTING PERMIT REJECTIONS, BUT THE CS, BUT THE COMMISSION WAS MEETING AND GIVING US 45 DAYS TO CURE. AND SO WE COULDN'T GET THE PERMIT, BUT WE HAD THE BOARD ORDERS, SO AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, UM, WHEN THE PERMITS WERE FINALLY ISSUED, THEN WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE COMPLETION DONE. SO IF YOU'LL DO NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. IF YOU SEE HERE, THE PERMITS WERE FINALLY ISSUED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2020. THIS WAS 30 DAYS AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DEADLINE THAT THE BOARD ORDERS GAVE US. SO WE HAD LIKE 15 DAYS TO DO ALL THE WORK FROM THE TIME THE BOARD ORDERS WERE ISSUED. OKAY. AND THEN THAT WAS 294 DAYS AFTER WE HAD SUBMITTED THE FIRST PERMIT APPLICATION. SO WE HAD THIS PERMIT LAG, AND THEN THE BOARD OBVIOUSLY HAS TO CONTINUE THEIR PROCESS, THE COMMISSION, AND Y'ALL ENTERED THE ORDERS, BUT WE STILL DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE PERMITS TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES OF VIOLATION OR THE ORDERS. SO IT WAS KINDA LIKE THIS TRAIN COMING DOWN THE TRACK AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET PERMITS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE VIOLATIONS WERE CURED. THE INSPECTORS, UM, AS PRESENTED HAVE GONE OUT, AND THEY HAVE SEEN THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE CURED. UM, THE BUILDINGS 10 AND 11 PASSED INSPECTION ON OC OCTOBER 26TH, 2020 AND BUILDING 22, UM, PASSED INSPECTION ON JANUARY 19TH, 2021. SO THAT BEING SAID, WE WERE ATTEMPTING IN GOOD FAITH TO WORK WITH YOU ALL. WE'RE STILL ATTEMPTING IN GOOD FAITH TO WORK WITH YOU ALL. UM, WE'VE TRIED TO CURE THE VIOLATIONS AND KEEP THEM IN COMPLIANCE. AND $60,119 AND 6 CENTS IS A LOT OF MONEY WHEN WE ARE ALSO CONSTANTLY HAVING PROPERTY MAINTENANCE AND TRYING TO LEASE OUT UNITS AT AFFORDABLE LEVELS. AND I HAVE PROVIDED PACKET INFORMATION ON THE INCENTIVES THAT WE'RE PROVIDING. AT ONE TIME, OUR CLIENT WAS PROVIDING, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, SIX MONTHS OF FREE RENT TO PEOPLE. UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HUD FIGURES, WE'RE WELL IN THE RANGE OF HUD HOUSING. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR SOME PENALTY RELIEF BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE DID GET THE VIOLATIONS CURED. AND IF YOU KIND OF LINE UP THESE TIMELINES, IT'S JUST VERY DIFFICULT, UM, FOR US TO GET WORK STARTED WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE THE PERMITS. AND I KNOW PERMITTING AND, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT REVIEW PROCESS, AND THERE'S ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT. BUT WE CONTINUED TO PRESENT, UM, APPLICATIONS AND REDO DESIGNS. WE HAD A PERMITTING FIRM THAT WAS HELPING OUR CLIENT TO EXPEDITE THESE THINGS, AND WE JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO GET THAT DONE WHEN THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED. WE GOT THE WORK DONE. AND SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS A MATTER OF US NOT WANTING TO DO THE WORK. SO IF YOU'LL WORK WITH US, UM, WE OBVIOUSLY HAD ASKED FOR THE FEE TO BE COMPLETELY WAIVED, BUT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE A JOB TO DO HERE, BUT ANY KIND OF RELIEF THAT YOU COULD AFFORD, WE WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL FOR. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU. UH, THANK YOU MS. ARAN. AND, UH, LET ME AT THIS TIME, UM, I WANT TO ASK, DOES THE INSPECTOR FINN OR ANYONE FROM THE CITY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY, UH, REPRESENTATIVES OR NOT AT THIS TIME? NO. NO. OKAY. THEN WHAT I'LL DO NOW IS I'LL OPEN, UH, OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR EITHER, EITHER SIDE. NO. OH, BY RICK CAMPBELL. UM, THIS PROP, THIS QUESTION GOES OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES. UM, I JUST HEARD IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU WEREN'T SURE WHY THE PERMITS IN 2020 [01:30:01] WERE REJECTED. I NOTICED THERE WAS ONE IN 2019. DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE A SENSE OF WHY THAT ONE WAS REJECTED OR PERHAPS GENERALLY WHY THE PERMITS WERE BEING REJECTED? UM, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. I DID ASK MY CLIENT TO, TO PHONE INTO THIS MEETING BECAUSE SHE WAS THE ONE ON THE GROUND DEALING WITH THOSE ISSUES. UM, SO I'M SORRY, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION EXACTLY. WE WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. UM, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE PERMITS, THE APPLICATIONS WERE SUBMITTED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT, I, I THINK FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, THE 2020 RESPONSES, THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT LAG TIME IN RECEIVING A RESPONSE. AND SO I DON'T THINK IT WAS A MATTER OF THE CITY SAYING, OH, HEY, WE'RE REJECTING THIS. COULD YOU GO FIX THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE ON YOUR PLANS? I THINK IT WAS JUST WE'RE NOT HEARING ANYTHING AND WE DON'T KNOW WHY. UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF OUR CLIENT, I DON'T THINK CECILIA'S ON THE LINE OR LINDA'S ON THE LINE. UM, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GET YOU THAT INFORMATION IS ON THE SPECIFICS OF THAT PROCESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, UH, THANK YOU MS. RA. AND WAS, UH, MR. LASING GONNA SPEAK OR WAS THAT, ARE YOU SPEAKING FOR BOTH? I WAS JUST, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT CNC IS REALLY COMMITTED TO RESOLVING VIOLATIONS GOING FORWARD. UM, THEY'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES AND THE IMPOSITION OF THIS FEE, WHILE WE UNDERSTAND IT WOULD BE JUSTIFIED BY LAW, IT WOULD UNDERMINE THEIR COMPLIANCE EFFORTS GOING FORWARD. THEIR RETURNS AREN'T NECESSARILY AS HIGH AS THOSE OF OTHER, UH, COMPARABLE COMPLEXES BECAUSE THEY HAVE THESE BELOW MARKET RATES. SO THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. UM, SO I GUESS THERE BEING NO, UH, OTHER QUESTIONS FROM FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, I'LL, OH, UH, SO CHAIR RECOGNIZES COMMISSIONER VIC. UM, SO I, I DO HAVE TWO QUESTIONS AND THE FIRST ONE, JUST KIND OF GENERALLY, I KNOW I'M LOOKING THROUGH SOME OF THE, UH, FINANCIAL INFORMATION YOU PROVIDED, AND Y'ALL SAID Y'ALL ARE GENERALLY BELOW MARKET, BUT NOT QUITE CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, BY AUSTIN IS WHAT KIND DO Y ARE Y'ALL PART OF LIKE THE LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX PROGRAM OR ARE CLASS C APARTMENTS? SO THEY'RE MARKET BASED, BUT THEY CAN'T CHARGE CLASS B OR CLASS A RENTS. MM-HMM . OKAY. GOTCHA. UH, BUT ARE Y'ALL ARE PART, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF PROGRAMS ARE KIND OF ATTACHED TO THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW? I GUESS I UNDERSTAND IT'S A CLASS C, BUT, UH, WHAT OTHER, I GUESS I'M KIND OF CURIOUS, WHAT ARE THE PROGRAMS THAT ADMINISTER? I'M NOT SURE OF WHAT THE PROGRAMS ARE EXACTLY. I ASKED MY CLIENT TO PROVIDE THEIR RENTAL RATES MM-HMM . BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEE WHERE THEY WERE. UM, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS COME UP IS THAT THEY HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF VACANCY RIGHT NOW, AND THEY ALSO HAVE PROVIDED, IF YOU LOOK ON THE FIRST SLIDE THAT WE PRODUCED, I BELIEVE THERE'S SORT OF A BREAKDOWN HERE OF THEIR, UM, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THEIR OFFERING, UM, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE AVERAGE RENTALS ON THEIR, THEIR UNITS, THEY'RE ACTUALLY BELOW SOME OF THE HUD RATES THERE. AND SO, OR THEY'RE FALLING JUST IN THAT SAME LINE OF WHAT HUD WOULD BE CHARGING. MM-HMM . I'M A LITTLE BIT CAREFUL BECAUSE I REPRESENT CLIENTS SOMETIMES AT THE CITY AT COUNCIL AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THE TERM AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS A MEANING. AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I DON'T MISREPRESENT ANYTHING. BUT TO YOUR POINT, UM, I, I BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU WERE SEEING HERE, AND WHEN WE PROVIDED OUR LETTER TO Y'ALL, WE ACTUALLY PROVIDED, OOPS, LEMME FIX THIS. WHEN WE PROVIDED OUR INITIAL LETTER TO YOU, WE ACTUALLY INCLUDED A CHART IF YOU WANNA LOOK AT THAT. UM, AND THAT SORT OF SHOWED SOME OF THE CONCESSIONS THAT THEY WERE OFFERING EIGHT WEEKS FREE RENT ON SELECT UNIT, UM, SIX WEEKS FREE RENT. AND SO THIS HAS BEEN CUSTOMARY AT SUNRISE BLUFFS MM-HMM . AND I THINK SINCE WE'VE BEEN REPRESENTING THEM, UM, AND THROUGH TODAY, THEY'RE STILL OFFERING THOSE KINDS OF INCENTIVES. SO WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS THEY WANNA GET PEOPLE IN THE UNITS, THEY, THEY'RE IN THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM, THEY DON'T WANNA BE SHUT DOWN, BUT THE WAY FOR THEM TO CURE VIOLATIONS IS TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO SO. AND YET THEIR RENTAL MAY NOT ALWAYS BE AT MARKET LEVEL, AND THEN THEY HAVE MORE FEES. AND SO, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN IMAGINE IT JUST TURNS INTO A CYCLE AND THOSE INCENTIVES ARE IN ADDITION TO THESE BELOW MARKET RATES. AND LIKE WE SAID, ALSO, THEY'RE AT 74% OCCUPANCY. SO THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM TO GROW. GOTCHA. AND THEN I GUESS MY SECOND QUESTION WAS, UM, THE BSC ORDER WITH THE 45 DAY [01:35:01] LIMIT CAME DOWN IN JULY OF 2020, IS THAT RIGHT? I WANNA MAKE SURE MY, MY TIMING'S RIGHT. YEAH. YES. Y'ALL MENTIONED, UM, YES. THE BSC ORDERS WERE ISSUED ON JULY 1ST, 2020. AND THEN YOU SAID, YOU MENTIONED THAT AT SOME POINT BUILDINGS 11 AND 22 PASSED INSPECTION BEFORE Y'ALL WERE ABLE TO YES, THEY GOT YES. TELL THAT. AND WHEN WAS THAT YOU? CAN YOU HELP ME REMEMBER? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. BEAR WITH ME. I'LL TELL YOU, UM, THEY PASSED INSPECTION BUILDING 10 AND 11 WAS OCTOBER 26TH, 2020. AND THAT WAS 42 DAYS AFTER THE BSCS ORDERS? NO, AFTER THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED, EXCUSE ME, AFTER THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED. OKAY, GOTCHA. SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS IF THE BSC WERE ISSUING AN ORDER, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEY SAID YOU'VE GOT 45 DAYS TO CURE A VIOLATION, THEN IF WE HAD THE PERMITS IN HAND, WE COULD HAVE DONE IT. AND FOR, AND THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF IT, BECAUSE ONCE WE GOT THE PERMIT IN 42 DAYS, WE CURED IT MM-HMM . RIGHT. AND THEN BUILDING 22, SIR WAS ACTUALLY PASSING INSPECTION AFTER 1 27 DAYS. OKAY. THEY WANTED TO GET ON THIS FASTER, BUT THEIR HANDS WERE TIED. THEY DIDN'T HAVE PERMITTING. AND LIKE WE SAID, THEY HAD NO MAINTENANCE STAFF AT ALL. BETWEEN MAY AND SEPTEMBER OF 2020, THEY WERE HIT REALLY HARD BY COVID. OKAY. YEAH, THEY WERE SHUT DOWN. UM, GO, GO AHEAD. YEAH, THAT, THAT'S ALL OF MY QUESTIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I, I DO SEE, I HAVE SEVERAL, UH, COMMISSIONERS AWAITING RECOGNITION, BUT JUST, UH, AS A MATTER OF PRIVILEGE, I'M GONNA JUST FOLLOW ON WITH, UH, SOME OF COMMISSIONER VIC'S QUESTIONS. I HAVE A FEW OF MY OWN BEFORE I RECOGNIZE OTHERS, SO BEAR WITH ME FOLKS. UH, JUST VERY QUICKLY ON, ON THE TAX CREDIT ISSUE. SO, UH, IS I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. IS IT, IS THE PROPERTY PARTICIPATING IN ANY TYPE OF LIKE HUD TAX CREDIT PROGRAM? UH, I MEAN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THOSE ARE ADMINISTERED, YOU GO TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND, UH, COMMUNITY FAIRS AND APPLY FOR CREDITS AND THEN THAT, THAT CAN ACTUALLY, THOSE CAN ACTUALLY BE, I THINK THEY CAN ACTUALLY BE MONETIZED OR SECURITIZED. I GET, LET ME JUST CUT INTO THE CHASE. THIS IS NOT A, NOT A NONPROFIT. THIS IS NOT A 5 0 1 C. THE, IT'S A, I I JUST, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR IT'S, YOU KNOW, I WANNA UNDERSTAND HOW IT, HOW THAT WORKS. LIKE HOW, WHAT'S THE BUSINESS MODEL? I DON'T WANNA REPRESENT TO YOU THAT I KNOW THE BUSINESS MODEL A HUNDRED PERCENT. OKAY. BUT THE BUSINESS MODEL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM MY CLIENT, I DON'T WANNA REPRESENT THAT THIS IS A HUD COMPLEX AND THEY'RE RECEIVING SUBSIDIES TO DO REPAIRS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AND THAT'S NOT MY AREA. SURE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ENTAILS FOR THEM. UM, BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THEY ARE OFFERING A PRODUCT ON THE MARKET SURE. AND THEY'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE COMPLEX, WHAT THE MARKET DATA IS, THE NEED FOR AFFORDABILITY IN AUSTIN. AND SO AS FAR AS, UM, IT BEING A NONPROFIT, NO, THIS IS NOT A NONPROFIT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THEY ARE RUNNING A BUSINESS OPERATION AND THEY'RE TRYING TO BE BELOW MARKET AND THEY'RE TRYING TO LEASE THE UNITS. SO, UM, THEY ARE OFFERING SIGNIFICANT INCENTIVES ALL THE TIME CONSTANTLY. BUT YOU'RE, BUT YOU'RE NOT REPRESENTING THAT. SO I MEAN, I GUESS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE QUESTION IS THAT IF WE JUST STATE THAT THEY'RE OFFERING UNITS BELOW MARKET FULL STOP, IT CAN LEAVE ONE WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY'RE LEAVING MONEY ON THE TABLE. WHEREAS IF PART OF THEIR REVENUE STREAM, IT TAKES THE FORM OF TAX CREDITS THAT THEY CAN MONETIZE OR THAT THEY CAN RESELL OR SECURITIZE OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, THE, THE SORT OF THE STICKER PRICE OF THE RENT, LIKE THE RETAIL PRICE OF THE RENTAL UNIT DOESN'T NECESSARILY REPRESENT ALL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE BUSINESS. RIGHT. BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT THAT'S THE CASE. SURE, I UNDERSTAND. YEAH. YEAH. YOU'RE NOT TAKING A POSITION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I JUST WANT, THAT WAS THE REASON FOR MY QUESTION. YEAH, I DON'T, I DON'T, I THINK WHAT OUR COMPARISON WAS AND WHAT WE LEARNED FROM OUR CLIENT WAS THAT IF YOU COMPARED THE PROJECT TO WHAT HUD HOUSING IS RENTING FOR, WE'RE GONNA BE IN THAT BALLPARK. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MS. DO, SO I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMISSIONER SLUGO, AND THEN AFTER THAT I'LL GO TO VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER FRANCE. SO COMMISSIONER SLUGO, I HAPPEN TO KNOW, UH, UNFORTUNATELY A GOOD BIT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND I THINK THE WAY THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD UNDERSTAND OF WHAT THE PROJECT IS, THERE IS LOW INCOME TAX CREDIT HOUSING. THERE IS, UH, CITY OF AUSTIN AFFORDABILITY HOUSING PROGRAMS, THE, SAY IT HAS ITS OWN PROGRAMS, BUT I THINK WHAT THIS IS, I THINK THIS IS CHARGING MARKET RENT FOR THE TYPE OF APARTMENT THAT IT IS. SO IT IS BELOW THE MEDIAN RENT. UH, IT MAY EVEN BE SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE MEDIAN, BUT THIS IS A SLIGHTLY RUNDOWN, RECENTLY, SOMEWHAT REPAIRED CLASS C APARTMENT, AN OLDER APARTMENT CITY OF AUSTIN HAD SIGNIFICANTLY MORE SUPPLY. [01:40:01] SO THERE'S JUST SIGNIFICANTLY LESS DEMAND FOR CLASS C APARTMENTS. AND SO YOU'LL JUST SEE, LIKE YOU SEE IN MOST CLASS C APARTMENTS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, VERY LOW OCCUPANCY WITH VERY LOW RENTS, BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T CHARGE VERY LOW RENTS WITH THE VERY GOOD, UM, INCENTIVES, THEY SIMPLY WILL GET NO OCCUPANTS INTO THE BUILDING. SO, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. IF, IF I CAN INTERJECT, I, I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. I, I DO THINK THAT THE, UH, COURSE OF YOUR, UH, COMMENT WHILE VALUABLE IS, UH, DRIFTING INTO AN AREA THAT'S PROBABLY BETTER FOR DISCUSSION THAN FOR THE Q PERIOD. I JUST DON'T WANT TO, I JUST WANNA CLEAR UP WHAT FEELS LIKE SOME MIS NOT NECESSARILY MISINFORMATION, SO LACK OF CLARITY IN, IN SOME OF THE, THOSE QUESTIONS. UNDERSTOOD. UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU FOR THAT. UH, I'LL GO TO VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL. UH, THIS QUESTION GOES TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AGAIN. UM, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I LOOKED THROUGH THE RECORD JUST TO MAKE SURE, SURE. THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT BUILDING IN THE RIGHT TIMELINE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BUILDING 22, THE EXTERIOR AND THE, UM, UH, PROBLEMS WITH THAT, UM, BUILDING WERE RESOLVED, UM, OVER A HUNDRED DAYS AFTER THE PERMITS WERE FINALIZED. UM, WHAT WAS THE DELAY THAT CAUSED THAT PERIOD? BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE MOST OF THE PENALTY THAT YOU'RE ASKING US TO, UM, UH, REDUCE ARE FROM THAT PARTICULAR, UH, PENALTY, THE 30, UM, SOMETHING THOUSAND DOLLARS PENALTY FROM VOTING 22. AND WHAT I FIND INTERESTING ABOUT THAT IS THAT YOU'VE SAID THAT YOU WERE STOPPED BY THE PERMITS AND THAT IF YOU HAD THE PERMITS, YOU WOULD'VE GOTTEN THEM RESOLVED VERY QUICKLY. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE EVEN AFTER THE PERMITS WERE GOTTEN, UM, 45 DAYS ELAPSED AFTER THAT POINT, UH, EVEN AFTER THE BSC ORDER, AND STILL, YOU KNOW, 60 MORE DAYS PASSED BEFORE THAT PARTICULAR VIOLATION WAS RESOLVED. AND I'M WONDERING WHAT THE DELAY THERE WAS. WE RECOGNIZE THAT'S OUTSIDE THE 45 DAY PERIOD. CNC AND SUNRISE BLUFFS WERE STILL RECOVERING FROM THEIR STAFFING SHORTAGE AT THIS TIME. AND MAINTENANCE WAS DIFFICULT, EVEN THOUGH THEIR MAINTENANCE STAFF WAS NO LONGER DOWN TO ZERO AT THAT POINT, IT WAS RECOVERING. IT WAS RECOVERING, AND THEY WERE ALSO HAVING TO GET INTO PEOPLE'S UNITS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I ALSO THINK THEY WERE JUST IN A POSITION WHERE, AND I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT PARTICULAR NOTICE OF VIOLATION, UM, TO SEE WHAT THOSE REPAIR ITEMS SPECIFICALLY WERE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BOGGING THAT PROCESS DOWN. BUT STRICTLY SPEAKING TO JOHN'S POINT, I THINK IT WAS REALLY A MAINTENANCE COORDINATION ISSUE AND THEN ALIGNING THAT AND GETTING THE REPAIRS COMPLETED. UM, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING WHERE YOU'VE GOT A COMPLEX THAT'S IN THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET AS MUCH OF THIS KNOCKED OUT AS WE CAN. AND WE'RE JUST SEEKING A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, UNDERSTANDING ON THE CONSTRAINTS WE WERE FACING CLEARLY. UM, WE KNOW Y'ALL HAVE A JOB TO DO, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK WHEN YOU'VE GOT A PROPERTY OWNER THAT WANTS TO COMPLY AND WAS COMPLYING PRETTY REASONABLY, UM, WE'D LIKE SORT OF THE FINE TO MATCH THE CRIME , IF YOU WILL. SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR A LITTLE RELIEF IN THAT REGARD. RIGHT. THANKS FOR THE CLARIFICATION. YES, SIR. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. MATT. THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR. UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. UH, THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. UH, MY QUESTION IS FOR, UH, CODE OFFICER FLYNN. EXCUSE ME. SO THERE WERE A LOT OF PICTURES AND SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF. THANK, AND YOU FLIPPED THROUGH THAT. I NOTICED THERE WAS A COUPLE ITEMS THAT MAYBE THERE WERE PICTURES OF, LIKE DOWNSPOUTS AND THINGS THAT WEREN'T THEN FOLLOWED UP. IS, IS YOUR TESTIMONY THAT EVERYTHING'S BEEN CLEANED UP TO CODE'S SATISFACTION ON ALL THE PREVIOUS ISSUES? IS THAT WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY? YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU INSPECTOR. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. SO I, SORRY, THIS WAS, HOLD ON. OH, I'M SO SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE . PLEASE CONTINUE. SORRY. WELL, THEY WOULD, I'LL FOLLOW UP TO YOURS. GO AHEAD. OKAY. UH, SO I JUST HAVE A FEW OF MY OWN, UH, SORRY. I REALIZE THIS JOHN ADAM'S RUNNING LONG, BUT, UH, I GUESS IT'S A BIG ONE. SO, UM, UM, I GUESS MINE ARE FOR, SO, UH, INSPECTOR FINN OR ANYBODY AT THE CITY WHO'D CARE TO JUMP IN, I KNOW SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, UH, SOMETIMES DIVISION MANAGER MORE WILL, WILL FIELD, UM, QUESTIONS OF THIS TYPE. BUT, SO IT LOOKS AS THOUGH FROM THE PREVIOUS, UM, PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS FROM THE 2019, UM, THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE EARLIEST ACTION I'M SHOWING ON THIS WAS IN JULY OF, OF 2019, BUT I DO SHOW THAT IT WAS AN ROP PROPERTY REPEAT, REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM. AND, UH, AND SO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE, FOR THE NEWER MEMBERS, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PROGRAM, THERE'S THIS, UH, THE HEURISTIC THEY GIVE US IS THE [01:45:01] 2 5 2. SO TWO OR MORE SEPARATE NOTICES OF VIOLATION NOT CORRECTED WITHIN THE RE REQUIRED TIME, FIVE OR MORE SEPARATE NOTICES OF VIOLATION ISSUED ON THE SEPARATE DAYS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CORRECTED OR NOT, OR TWO OR MORE VIOLATIONS WITHIN 24 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS. UM, SO I GATHER THIS WAS ALREADY ON REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM BEFORE THE JULY, 2019 CASE WAS OPENED IN THE HISTORY THAT WE HAVE, OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING? AND AGAIN, ANYBODY WHO'D CARE TO SURE. CHAIR RECOGNIZE GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MATTHEW NORIEGA, DIVISION MANAGER FOR THE REPEAT DEFENDER PROGRAM. THIS PROPERTY CAME INTO THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM IN JUNE OF 29, 20 16. 2016. SO THIS PROPERTY DID HAVE FIVE VIOLATIONS AT THAT TIME. AND MANY OF THE PICTURES YOU SEE WERE, THERE WERE STRUCTURAL VIOLATIONS, STRUCTURAL FAILURES THAT WERE OCCURRING. SO THAT'S WHAT WAS WHAT WE WERE DEALING WITH. OKAY. UM, THANK YOU. AND THEN, UM, A RELATED, WELL, I, I DON'T KNOW HOW RELATED THIS IS ACTUALLY, BUT, UM, SO I'M JUST, UH, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN, UM, IN THE, IN THE PAST, UM, THE, UH, WE WERE PROVIDED WITH THE, THE BSC MANAGERIAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATE. AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, FOR THE NEWER MEMBERS WITH, UM, WITH, UH, CASES OF VARYING COMPLEXITY, UH, WHERE PENALTY RELIEF IS SOUGHT, UH, IT WAS THOUGHT THAT IT MIGHT BE OF SOME USE TO KIND OF FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH A GIVEN CASE HAD, HAD, HAD KIND OF COST THE CITY, YOU KNOW, FOR IMPORT PURSUING ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE A HIGH COMPLEXITY CASE CAN HAVE A TOTAL OUT THE DOOR OF ABOUT, I THINK THE ESTIMATE, AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF MY DATE IS CURRENT, BUT $12,337. UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT CAN JUST BE SORT OF A ROUGH GUIDELINE. UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NOT BINDING ON US IN ANY WAY, BUT A ROUGH GUIDELINE IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT PENALTY RELIEF, IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE'RE OFFERING SO MUCH RELIEF THAT IS GONNA END UP SORT OF COSTING THE CITY MONEY. AND SO I, I GUESS I JUST, WHO AGAIN, WHOEVER CARED TO FIELD IT, UM, YOU KNOW, IS THAT, IS THAT AN APPROXIMATE? I I SEEM TO RECALL, SOMEBODY SAID IT WAS A HIGH COMPLEXITY. I THINK CODE REVIEW ANALYST, ALLIE SAID IT WAS A HIGH COMPLEXITY CASE. SO THIS WOULD BE IN THAT $12,000 RANGE. AND THAT'S FOR EACH, UM, FOR EACH OF THE THREE, UM, CASE NUMBERS. IS THAT RIGHT? UH, CHAIR, THE DOCUMENTS, UH, YOU JUST REFERENCED ARE BOTH IN YOUR, UH, GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. OKAY. OKAY. IF YOU'D LIKE LOOK AT THOSE. SO, UM, SO I'M GETTING SORT OF AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSES THERE, SO I JUST WANTED TO GET KIND OF TOUCH ON THAT VERY BRIEFLY. AND I GUESS I'LL GO BACK TO, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, THEN A QUESTION FOR MELANIE WAS THAT, UH, TIM SAID IT WAS FOR EACH, OR IS THAT TOTALED, OR IS THAT THE 12 3 37? THAT'S FOR EACH ONE OF THE VIOLATIONS? THE, UM, IT'S FOR EACH SET OF BUILDINGS OR EACH ORDER MM-HMM . OKAY. SO IN THIS CASE IT IS THE THREE BUILDINGS WOULD BE FOR THREE BUILDINGS. OKAY. YES. ONE ORDER FOR EACH BUILDING. THANK YOU. THE PENALTIES FOR TWO OF THE BUILDINGS WERE $14,447 AND 32 CENTS. AND THE THIRD ONE WAS THE $31,224 AND 42 CENTS. AND THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FOR BUILDING 22. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, MELANIE, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, WAS THAT, WAS THAT ALL? YES. OKAY. AND, UH, VICE CHAIR, UH, THIS ALSO GOES OUT TO CITY STAFF. UM, ARE ALL OF THESE CHARACTERIZED AS HIGH COMPLEXITY CASES? IF THERE THREE ORDERS WERE ONE OF THEM, HIGH COMPLEXITY AND THE OTHER'S NOT, OR ALL OF THEM HIGH COMPLEXITY? I'M JUST CURIOUS, GIVEN THAT MIGHT DECISION. THEY'RE ALL HIGH COMPLEXITY. UH, AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE IT IS UNDER THE PROGRAM, THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM. SO THE, THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROGRAM AND THE, AND THE, THE VIOLATIONS THAT WE'RE FINDING ON THE PROPERTY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU, DIVISION MANAGER. THANK YOU. UH, VICE CHAIR. UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS MYSELF. UH, AND DO I HEAR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION? OKAY. UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL MOVES MOVE TO CLOSE AND, UH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANZ. IS THERE? OBJECTION. ALRIGHT. HEARING NONE, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS CLOSED. UM, IF I COULD ASK THE PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATIVES TO JUST REMAIN, UH, WHERE YOU ARE, BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO THE MOTIONS AND, AND SUCH, UH, BUT IF FURTHER QUESTIONS EMERGE, WE MIGHT WANT TO, UH, HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN. SO, UM, AT THIS TIME I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY MOTION. UH, VICE CAMPBELL, UH, I WOULD TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED COMMISSIONER YOUR MICROPHONE. OH, SORRY. I WOULD MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND, UM, MODIFY [01:50:01] THE PENALTY TO A TOTAL OF $37,000, I'M SORRY, $37,012 AND 20 CENTS. AND THAT IF THE AMOUNT IN TOTAL HAS NOT BEEN PAID BY THE 31ST DAY, THAT THE TOTAL PENALTY WILL BE REINSTATED. OKAY. UM, UH, THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR BEFORE I, UH, RESTATE. WELL, I'LL SECOND BE. OKAY. UH, SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN, UH, MOVED AND SECONDED, UH, BY VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. UM, BEFORE I RESTATE IT, UH, HOWEVER, UM, UH, COMM, VICE CHAIR, UH, WOULD YOU CARE TO, UH, BREAK THAT DOWN PER, UH, PER VIOLATION? BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDED ORDER DOES HAVE, UH, SEPARATE AMOUNTS, UH, IN, IN PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE AMOUNTS CORRESPONDING TO THE DIFFERENT, UM, CASES. AND, UH, DID YOU WANT TO HAVE A CORRESPONDING, UH, YES. TO CLARIFY THE ORDER THAT I AM PROPOSING IS THAT EACH OF THE THREE FEES BE REDUCED TO $12,337 AND 40 CENTS, EACH OF THEM RESPECTIVELY REDUCED TO THAT AMOUNT. OKAY. VERY GOOD. UM, OKAY. UH, SO MEMBERS, UH, YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION, I'M GONNA RECOGNIZE, UH, SHOULD SHAKI TO DO SO. VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, TO OPEN ON DISCUSSION AS THE AUTHOR OF THE MOTION. UM, I WANNA CLARIFY THAT I AM NOT NECESSARILY ATTACH THIS NUMBER IN PARTICULAR, BUT I CHOSE IT AS A STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION. UM, IT IS REDUCING EACH OF THE PENALTY AMOUNTS IN THE THREE CASES TO THE 12,337 40 CENTS FOR WHICH IS THE TOTAL COST FOR THE CITY IN THE HIGH COMPLEXITY CASES. THE ESTIMATE THAT WE WERE GIVEN, UM, I SORT THIS OUT AS THE NUMBER BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE PENALTY RELIEF, BUT WE HAVE TYPICALLY NOT GONE BELOW, UM, THE CITY'S COSTS. SO AT LEAST IN THE PAST WE HAVEN'T, I THINK MANY OF US HAVE EXPRESSED OF YOU THAT THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY DEPRIVING THE CITY OF TOO MUCH FUNDS AND, UM, EXPRESSED HESITANCY ABOUT THAT. SO THAT'S THE POINT THAT I'M GOING TO START DISCUSSION WITH. BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO, UM, SUGGEST AS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT WE COULD DISCUSS CHANGING THE PENALTY RELIEF JUST TO RECOGNIZE WHERE THE ACTUAL BULK OF THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED, GIVEN THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WAS TWO ISSUES THAT WERE RESOLVED RELATIVELY PROMPTLY, ONE THAT WAS RESOLVED MUCH SLOWER, BUT, UM, THAT'S JUST MY STARTING POINT. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU, UH, VICE CHAIR AND, UH, ANY FOLLOW UP ON THAT AS, AS THE SECOND? COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. OKAY. SO, UM, ANY, UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS PRESENT? OKAY. UH, WELL, I GUESS I'LL, I'LL OPEN IT UP A LITTLE BIT AND JUST KIND OF, UH, I WOULD, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT IT, THE, THE FIGURE THAT, UH, THE MOTION ARRIVES AT IS, UH, BASICALLY EXACTLY EQUAL TO THE ESTIMATED LABOR COST FOR A HIGH COMPLEXITY CASE. AND SO IN EFFECT, THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY A 100% WRITE OFF OF, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER PORTION OF THE, UM, PREVIOUSLY ACCRUED, UH, CIVIL PENALTIES, YOU KNOW, COULD BE CHARACTERIZED AS PUNITIVE. AND SO THAT, I GUESS THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO, TO, TO CONTEMPLATE, YOU KNOW, UH, IN JUST DECIDING WHETHER WE LIKE THIS, UH, MOTION OR NOT. WE WANT TO, WE WANNA DECIDE WHETHER WE THINK IT'S, IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO JUST BREAK, BREAK EVEN ON THIS. UM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT OFFERING A POSITION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THAT RIGHT NOW. UH, JUST TO, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE, UM, A FRUITFUL ITEM FOR, UM, DISCUSSION. UM, ANOTHER, UH, ANOTHER CONSIDERATION, I GUESS, UM, JUST SORT OF THINKING OUT LOUD HERE, UH, I CONFESS TO HAVING SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF SORT OF CREDITING THE, UH, CONTENTION THAT, UH, DELAYS IN PERMITTING WERE, UH, SORT OF INSTRUMENTAL IN, IN DELAYS OF, UH, OF CORRECTING THE CITED VIOLATIONS. UH, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE DEFINITIVE ANSWERS AS TO WHY, UH, THE PERMITS WERE, UH, REJECTED. UH, SO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS, UM, IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE PERMIT APPLICATION, UM, YOU KNOW, I THEN I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD BE IMPUTED TO, UH, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR, OR, YOU KNOW, UH, OR THE CITY'S PERMITTING DEPARTMENT. IT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT MEANS THAT, UH, POTENTIALLY MEANS THAT THE APPLICANT DIDN'T SORT OF COME CORRECT WITH THE PERMIT. UM, SO I THINK THAT THOSE ARE ITEMS AVAILABLE FOR, UH, FOR DISCUSSION. [01:55:01] UM, COMMISSIONER, UH, IVI. YEAH, I'D, I'D ALSO BE A LITTLE BIT CURIOUS. SO, UM, OBVIOUSLY I'M NEWER, BUT THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM, I'M ASSUMING THIS PROPERTY IS NOT WHAT GOT CNC ONTO THIS PROGRAM AND IT'S ALSO WHAT, HOW THEY ACT HERE IS NOT NECESSARILY GONNA GET THEM OFF THAT PROGRAM, IS THAT CORRECT? WELL, I, I ACTUALLY THINK THAT HOW THEY, I, I MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. LET ME, LET ME, UM, IF I COULD DEFER TO DIVISION MANAGER REGA ON, ON THIS, HOW TO REMOVE 'EM FROM THE PROGRAM OR HOW WOULD THEY, WE BE REMOVED? IS THAT CORRECT? SO I'M CUR MY UNDERSTANDING IS RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ON IT, WHICH GIVES US, I THINK, A REASON TO BE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE CAUTIOUS ABOUT HOW WE GO ABOUT THIS. UM, AND SO I GUESS I'M CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, WITH THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OR THE MODIFICATION AT, OR THE, THE ORDER AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS, HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THEIR STATUS AS A REPEAT OFFENDER? DOES IT MOVE THEM TOWARDS TO, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE BEEN BETTER AND SO NOW THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH THIS ORDER AND NOW WE LIKE THEM MORE OR KIND OF HOW DOES THAT WORK? NO, IT DOESN'T AFFECT IT. THE ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED. THESE VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN CLEARED. OKAY. AND, UH, WE LOOK BACK TWO YEARS AND IF THEY MEET THAT 2 5 2 CRITERIA ONCE AGAIN, UH, THEN THEY WOULD BE ON THE PROGRAM UNTIL THEY CAN BE, UH, NO LONGER MEET THE 2 5 2 CRITERIA. OKAY. AND SO THE ORDERS, NO MATTER WHAT WE DO HERE, THOSE ORDERS ARE GONNA STILL, THEY'RE NOT, THEY STILL STAND. OKAY, I SEE. UM, OKAY. AND SO WHILE BEING ON THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM, OTHER THAN OBVIOUSLY OUR INCREASED SCRUTINY, IS THERE ANY OTHER, UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT CNC GETS OR DOESN'T GET BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THAT PROGRAM? UH, NO. OKAY. GOTCHA. THIS IS JUST REDUCE RE REDEMPTION OF FI FINES. OKAY. GOTCHA. THE BSC. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER OTA LUGO, AND FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME, DIVISION MANAGER, BUT UH, THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM DOES NOT FOLLOW THE OWNER, IT FOLLOWS THE PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. SO EVEN IF THERE WAS SOME SORT OF TRANSFER, TRANSFER PHONE OF OWNERSHIP, IT WOULD BE WITH THE BUILDINGS, DO IT WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY ITSELF. AND DO WE KNOW, SORRY, THIS MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. DO WE KNOW WHEN CNC ACQUIRED THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY? I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY. I WOULD SAY IT'S BEEN PROBABLY SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS AGO, BUT I DON'T WANNA SAY FOR SURE. THEY, UM, THEY HAVE BEEN PART OF THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM. MM-HMM . AND MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL IS THAT EVEN IF THESE ISSUES ARE CLOSED OUT, THEY'RE STILL PART OF THAT PROGRAM AND IF THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG TOMORROW, IT'S GONNA BE LIKE BRAND NEW. OKAY. PROCEEDING HERE. UM, AS WELL, THE BOARD ORDERS THAT THERE ARE THREE OF THEM HERE THAT ARE, THAT ARE ON DISPLAY HERE FOR DISCUSSION AND THOSE BOARD ORDERS. UM, WHILE I UNDERSTAND EACH OF THEM COST THE CITY MONEY, I THINK THERE IS SOME EFFICIENCY THERE IN THE CITY TAKING UP THESE ISSUES 'CAUSE THEY'RE ALL SORT OF TOGETHER AND MAYBE ONE OF THEM WAS A LITTLE MORE EXTENSIVE THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT TOTALLY COST THE CITY THAT MUCH MONEY FOR EACH ONE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT CALCULATION. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION RATHER? OKAY. UH, OKAY. UM, SO JUST TO, OH, VICE, SORRY, WHO WAS FIRST? COMMISSIONER OLUGO? I WOULD SAY JUST TO THE CHAIR'S POINT, I, I'M, I WILL NOT THINK THIS VOTE, UH, ON THIS, BUT I, I WOULD, I DO THINK IN, I THINK I'VE GENERALLY BEEN KNOWN FOR BEING MUCH MORE GENEROUS WITH FEE REDUCTIONS THAN I AM, BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SOMEONE WHO HAS BOUGHT A FAILING PROPERTY TO FIX IT UP AND THEN SORT OF TAKE IT BACK INTO A LIMELIGHT VERSUS KIND OF A, A, YOU KNOW, REPEAT OFFENDER PERSON WHO'S HAD SORT OF CONTINUOUS PROBLEMS. UM, AND WITH, YOU KNOW, A A, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT STORY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHY THINGS TOOK THE, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY DID. BUT THE OFFENSES THAT I SAW AT LEAST SEEMED QUITE SERIOUS TO ME. UH, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE FOLKS WHO WOULD BE LIVING IN THE PROPERTY LIKE THIS ARE GENERALLY GONNA HAVE FEWER RESOURCES TO DEAL WITH THIS. AND IT'S SORT OF THE MEDIAN RESIDENT OF, OF AUSTIN NOW. UM, ALL THAT BEING SAID, WHILE I THINK IN, IN AN IDEAL WORLD, I WOULDN'T JUST DO THE COST BASIS, UM, 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK THIS IS THAT SORT OF, UM, STANDARD PROTOCOL. I THINK I AM HAPPY WITH THE SORT OF MEDIAN SORT OF OUTCOME HERE. WE'RE IN A ROUGHLY GOOD NUMBER. YES. I THINK THERE COULD BE AN ARGUMENT MADE FOR, FOR MORE AND THERE COULD BE AN ARGUMENT MADE FOR LESS, BUT I THINK OVERALL, I THINK WE PROBABLY HIT, YOU KNOW, WITH SOME MARGIN OF ERROR, THE RIGHT BALLOT. ALRIGHT. UH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER AND VICE CHAIR. I, I THINK I SAW YOUR, YOUR HAND. UH, YES. AGAIN, I PUT OUT THIS NUMBER JUST AS A STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION GIVEN OUR RECENT PRACTICE OF HAVING A MOTION PENDING ON THE TABLE BEFORE ACTUALLY MOVING INTO DISCUSSION PERIOD. UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT THAT I DO AGREE THAT WE SHOULDN'T NECESSARILY GIVE [02:00:01] TOO MUCH CREDENCE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR DELAYS DUE TO PERMITTING RESTRICTIONS, JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OUR ACTUAL ORDERS DO SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO ACQUIRE AND FINALIZE ALL PERMITS. THAT IS AN ANTICIPATED PART OF THE PROCESS, CERTAINLY. UM, BUT THAT BEING SAID, I I, I DO JUST WANNA BE CLEAR HERE, UM, I AM CERTAINLY NOT TRYING TO PUSH US ALL INTO THIS NUMBER IN PARTICULAR. AND I WOULD WELCOME ANY AMENDMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE INTO FINAL DISCUSSION. AND IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO KILL THIS MOTION, THEY SHOULD EXPRESS THEIR OPINION BEFORE WE MOVE INTO VOTING . ALRIGHT. UH, THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR. UM, WELL, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SEEING ANYBODY ELSE SEEKING RECOGNITION ON THIS ONE. AND, AND, UH, I I THINK I, I SHARE COMMISSIONER OLUGOS, UM, SENSE THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, I THINK WE CAN, REASONABLE MINDS CAN DIFFER ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE, UM, PENALTY REDUCTION, BUT I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ENOUGH ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UH, TO TANK IT. SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND PUT THE QUESTION TO THE BODY. AND, AND SO, UM, JUST TO, TO RESTATE IT BRIEFLY, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL ON THE MOTION OF VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. UH, THE MOTION IS TO ADOPT STAFF'S, UH, FINDING OF FACTS, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED ORDER, UH, WITH THE, UH, FOLLOWING MODIFICATION, UH, NAMELY THAT IN, UH, PARAGRAPH ONE, UH, THE, UH, CIVIL PENALTIES, UH, CURRENTLY STATED $14,437 AND 32 CENTS. UH, SECONDLY $14,447 AND 32 CENTS. AND AND THIRDLY, $31,222 AND 42 CENTS FOR A TOTAL OF $60,119 AND 6 CENTS BE REDUCED RESPECTIVELY TO, UH, 12,333, PARDON ME, $12,337 AND 40 CENTS, UH, FOR ALL THREE, FOR A TOTAL OF, UH, 37,000, UH, $12 AND 20 CENTS. AND WITH THAT, UM, IT'LL BE A ROLL CALL VOTE AND I'LL BEGIN WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER TEVI. AYE, UH, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART AYE. COMMISSIONER OLUGO AYE. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. AYE COMM, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL. AYE. UH, CHAIR VOTES. AYE. THERE BEING SIX AYES AND NO NAYS. THE, UH, MOTION IS, UM, THE MOTION PASSES AND, UH, SO IS IT A, MR. LAWSON, DO YOU UNDER UNDERSTAND? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT. WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ALL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ALRIGHT. I KNOW IT'S INTENSE TO SIT HERE THAT LONG. THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY. WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. UH, OKAY. SO, UH, WITH THAT, UM, WE WILL MOVE, I'M GOING TO GO TO ITEM NUMBER [8. Case Numbers: CL 2023-128097, CL 2023-114247, CL 2024-004525 and CL 2024-004523] EIGHT BECAUSE I BELIEVE, UH, WE DO HAVE, UH, FOLKS WAITING TO TESTIFY THERE. UM, ACTUALLY I BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA STAND IN JUST A VERY BRIEF RECESS BECAUSE WE HAVE A MEMBER OFF THE DA. UH, BUT, UH, IT'LL JUST BE A MOMENT. I'M NOT, NOT GONNA GAVEL US OUT. SO JUST, UH, STAND, BUT FEEL FREE TO MOVE DOWN FRONT IF YOU'RE REPRESENTING ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. UM, OKAY. OKAY. UH, SO WE HAVE QUORUM AND, UH, IF I COULD JUST ASK THE VERY BRIEFLY BEFORE WE, UH, RECOGNIZE THE CITY, IF I COULD ASK THE, UH, PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVE TO PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THE PROPERTY. HI THERE, MY NAME IS BLAIR PENA AND I REPRESENT THE OWNER. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU MS. PENA. AND, UH, SO WITH THAT I'LL TURN TO, UH, CODE ANALYST, ALLIE, TO, UH, TAKE IT FROM THERE. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON THE AGENDA IS A MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2301 DERWOOD STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS 2324 WILSON STREET AND LUCERO APARTMENT HOMES. THE CASE NUMBERS ARE CL 2 2 3 28 9 7 20 23, 1 1 4 2 4 7 20 24, 4 500, 2 5, AND C 22, 4 4 5 2 3 AND IS REGARDING BUILDINGS 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR. THE COMMISSION ISSUED ORDERS FOR BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO IN OCTOBER 23RD, 2023 AND FOUR BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR IN FEBRUARY, 2024. THE PROPERTY IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FOUR ORDERS. THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TONIGHT TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING RELIEF FOR THE ACCRUED PENALTIES. THE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GOLD BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DERIVE FOLDER. HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THESE CASES. THESE CASES ARE A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY CURRENTLY IN THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM. AT THE TIME EACH OF THE ORDERS WERE ISSUED, THE FOUR BUILDINGS WERE CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS AND UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. BUILDING ONE AND TWO ORDERS REQUIRED REPAIR WITHIN 90 DAYS WITH A PENALTY OF $500 PER WEEK, [02:05:01] BEGINNING ON THE 91ST DAY OF COMPLIANCE, WAS NOT ACHIEVED. BUILDING THREE AND FOUR ORDERS REQUIRED REPAIR WITHIN 90 DAYS WITH A PENALTY OF $1,000 PER DAY PER VIOLATION, BEGINNING ON THE 91ST DAY. IF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ACHIEVED, THE TOTAL PENALTIES AS OF TODAY'S DATE ARE $18,449 AND 24 CENTS, $18,449 AND 24 CENTS FOR BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO AND $257,260 AND 27 CENTS, AND $385,000 EIGHT HUNDRED AND NINETY THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY $5,890 AND 41 CENTS FOR BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR FOR A COMBINED TOTAL OF $680,049 AND 16 CENTS. EACH ORDER INCLUDES INTEREST ACCRUED FROM THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE DATE OF TODAY'S MEETING. THESE HAVE BEEN HIGH COMPLEXITY CASES FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN. IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING, THE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS 1, 2, 3, A THROUGH THREE, W FOUR, AND FIVE A THROUGH FIVE P SIX SEVEN, AND EIGHT A THROUGH EIGHT J NINE, AND 10 A THROUGH 10 L. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT 11, WHICH CONSISTS OF AN UPDATED COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY FOR EACH CASE. A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, THE RECORDED BSC ORDERS ISSUED OCTOBER 28TH, 2023, AND FEBRUARY 28TH, 2024, AND THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY STATEMENTS AND EXHIBIT 12, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS AND THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION CODE INSPECTOR ERIC FINN IS HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THE CORRELATE, THE CORRECTED VIOLATIONS AND TIMELINE FOR COMPLIANCE, AND WE'LL PRESENT SOME COMPLIANCE PHOTOS. CODE INSPECTOR FINN, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. I'M ERIC FAN, A CODE INSPECTOR WITH THE CODE COMPLIANCE. THE PROPERTY BEING BARRED BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 23 0 1 DERWOOD STREET FOR BUILDINGS 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR. ACCORDING TO THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, THE OWNER OF RECORD IS 2 0 1 3 TRAVIS OAK CREEK, LP SINCE FEBRUARY OF 2022, THIS PROPERTY HAD, WAS REGISTERED AS PART OF THE RENTAL REGISTRATION PROGRAM FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS DURING, UH, PERIODIC INSPECTIONS DATING BACK TO JUNE 8TH, 2023 AND AUGUST OF 2023. UH, ISSUES CONCERNING WATER INTRUSION TO THE EXTERIOR HALLWAYS, UH, THROUGHOUT CERTAIN FLOOR LEVELS WERE CAUSING DETERIORATION. UH, LIKEWISE AT BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO, I OBSERVED CRACKS WITH BROKEN OR UNEVEN MATERIALS TO EXTERIOR LANDINGS OR WALKWAYS, UM, WHICH BECAME A HIGHER PRIORITY. DURING OCTOBER OF 2023, THE PROPERTY WAS SENT TO VS, EXCUSE ME, BSC FOR THE VIOLATIONS AT BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO. UH, ON AUGUST OF 2022. CORRECTION, ON AUGUST 22ND, 2023, I RECEIVED AN ENGINEER'S LETTER CONCERNING A TEMPORARY SHORING TO BE INSTALLED AT BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO OF THIS PROPERTY. ALTHOUGH THE TEMPORARY SHORING WAS INSTALLED, UH, THROUGHOUT THE THIRD AND FIFTH LEVELS OF BUILDING ONE, REPAIRS WERE STILL NEEDED OVER THE FOLLOWING MONTHS. UH, THROUGHOUT 2023 AND 24, OR EXCUSE ME, I CONDUCTED FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS WHERE I OBSERVED THE EXTERIOR CEILINGS TO THE LANDING AND WALKWAYS EXHIBITED, UH, DETERIORATION OR DAMAGE TO EXPOSED TRUS OR SUB-LEVEL FLOORING MATERIALS THROUGHOUT VARIOUS SECTIONS OF BUILDINGS, ONE TO THREE AND FOUR. IN 2024, I DISCOVERED THAT A PERMIT FOR REMODELING THE BREEZEWAY AN EMERGENCY PERMIT RATHER FOR REMODELING THE BREEZEWAY TO LEVELS THREE THROUGH SIX WAS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER THE 29TH OF 2023. IN FEBRUARY OF 24, I DISCOVERED THAT A PERMIT FOR REPAIRING THE CATWALKS AND COLUMNS FOR LEVELS NEEDED AT, FOR LEVELS FOUR, FIVE, AND SIX AT BUILDING ONE TO INCLUDE, UH, WATERPROOFING. CONCRETE STUCCO PAINT WAS ISSUED IN FEBRUARY ON FEBRUARY 15TH, 2024. UH, THROUGHOUT THE FOLLOWING MONTHS OF 24, I OBSERVED THAT CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS REMAINED IN PROGRESS TO THE LANDINGS OF WALKWAYS, UH, AT ALL THESE [02:10:01] BUILDINGS AT 2301 DERWOOD STREET. HOWEVER, UM, GOING THROUGH THE PERMITING HISTORY, UH, BUILDING PERMIT WAS APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 8TH, FOUR BUILDINGS, 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR. HOWEVER, THESE PERMITS WERE NOT FINALIZED AS REPAIRS CONTINUED. UH, THROUGHOUT 2024. ON MAY THE 31ST OF 2024, I OBSERVED THAT CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS, UH, APPEARED TO BE COMPLETED TO THE WALKWAYS, UH, THROUGHOUT THE LANDINGS AND AT BUILDINGS. ONE. UH, ON SEPTEMBER THE 23RD, I OBSERVED THAT REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED AT BUILDING TWO I THROUGH THE STAIRWAY BY THE ELEVATORS. ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2024, I OBSERVED THAT REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED, UH, ON THE FIFTH FLOOR AT BUILDING THREE, AND ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2024, I OBSERVED THAT CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED TO THE LANDINGS OR WALKWAYS, UH, AT BOTH THREE AND FOUR OF THIS PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE MAJORITY OF THE PERMITS WERE NOT FINALIZED UNTIL LATER IN SEPTEMBER OF 2024 AND, UH, OCTOBER OF 2024. I'LL NOW PROCEED TO A PHOTOGRAPH, A PRESENTATION OF THIS PROPERTY. THE FIRST PHOTO IS JUST A CONTEXTUAL VIEW, UH, SHOWING THE REAR ENTRANCE SIGN OFF OF, UM, WILSON STREET, IDENTIFYING THE PROPERTY AT, UH, RIO APARTMENTS FOR 2301 DERWOOD STREET. NEXT EXHIBIT, THIS PHOTO DATED AUGUST THE NINTH OF 2023, SHOWS WHERE THE EXTERIOR CEILING TO THE WALKWAY THERE WAS OPEN, EXPOSING THE AREA, UM, SHOWING DETERIORATION TO MATERIALS UNDERNEATH NEXT EXHIBIT. THESE ARE THE, UH, FOURTH AND FIFTH LEVELS OF BUILDING ONE ADJACENT TO THE, UH, ELEVATOR LANDING THERE, SHOWING THAT TEMPORARY SHORING, UM, WAS INSTALLED AT THOSE LEVELS AND THOSE AREAS WERE OPEN, UM, TO VIEW, UH, EXPOSING THE, THE AREAS WITH DETERIORATION. NEXT EXHIBIT, THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW OF THE STAIRWAY BY THE ELEVATORS OF BUILDING TWO, JUST SHOWING THAT, UH, THE PILLAR THERE WAS, UH, UNEVEN NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS THE SECOND LEVEL BY THE ELEVATORS OF BUILDING TWO, SHOWING CRACKING. UH, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS REPAIR, THERE'S STILL CRACKING TO THE, UH, CEILING NEAR THE PILLAR THERE. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS, THIS PHOTO SHOWS A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE SHORING TOWARDS THE, UH, EXCUSE ME, AT THE BOTTOM, UH, OF LEVEL, UH, THREE BODY ELEVATORS. UM, CAN'T SEE THE, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S DATED, IS THAT I CAN'T SEE THE DATE. THIS IS DATED LATER IN 2024. IT SHOWS THAT, UH, ALTHOUGH WORK IS STILL IN PROGRESS, THE MORE IMPROVED, UH, TEMPORARY SHOWING WAS IN PLACE, UH, ON THE THIRD LEVEL. NEXT EXHIBIT, UH, THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THAT MORE AREAS WERE OPEN, UH, IN AN ATTEMPT TO REPAIR, UH, THE OTHER LEVELS OF THE, UH, FIFTH AND FOURTH LEVELS AT BUILDING ONE. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS JUST A VIEW OF, UH, UNIT 3, 5 0 1 AT BUILDING THREE OF THIS PROPERTY. NEXT EXHIBIT, UH, THIS IS JUST SHOWING CRACKING AND PEELING MATERIALS IN THE HALLWAY BETWEEN UNITS. UH, 3 0 5, I BELIEVE, DOWN TO, UH, 3 0 4 AT BUILDING THREE OF THIS PROPERTY. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS A CLOSER VIEW, UM, WHERE THE AREA WAS EXPOSED, UH, IN THE SAME HALLWAY, UH, SHOWING, UH, DETERIORATION TO THE SUBFLOOR OR, AND OR TRUST, UH, IN THIS AREA. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS IS AT BUILDING FOUR ON THE 11TH, UH, DURING NOVEMBER IN 2023, JUST [02:15:01] SHOWING, UH, WATER OR DISCOLORATION DUE TO WATER INTRUSION AT THIS LOCATION OF BUILDING FOUR ON THE SECOND LEVEL. NEXT EXHIBIT, UH, THIS IS THE FOURTH LEVEL I BELIEVE, SHOWING, UH, DETERIORATION, UH, DUE TO WATER INTRUSION, UH, IN THIS AREA, NEAR APARTMENT UNITS AT BUILDING FOUR. NEXT, EXHIBIT IT, AND THIS IS OCTOBER 7TH, 2024. UH, FOLLOW UP INSPECTION, UH, SHOWING WHERE REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED AND THE, THE REPAIR HAS BEEN IN GOOD CONDITION AT BUILDING ONE TO THE LANDINGS BY THE ELEVATOR. NEXT EXHIBIT, THIS IS, UH, JUST A CLOSEUP VIEW OF THE THIRD LEVEL AT BUILDING ONE BY THE ELEVATORS, SHOWING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, TEMPORARY SHORING HAS BEEN REMOVED AND AGAIN, THE REPAIR IS COMPLETE AND IN GOOD CONDITION. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS IS JUST A VIEW OF THE FOURTH LEVEL AT BUILDING TWO, UH, BY THE ELEVATOR SHOWING THAT, UM, IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE OR CORRECTED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PILLAR AND THE FLOORING. NEXT EXHIBIT, THIS IS THE CEILING AT THE SAME AREA SHOWING THAT, UH, REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED AND THEY'RE IN GOOD CONDITION. NEXT EXHIBIT. UH, THIS IS BY UNIT 3 0 5 AND CORRECTION 35 0 0 AND 35 0 1. SHOWING REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED TO THE HALLWAY CEILING, AND THE REPAIRS WERE IN GOOD CONDITION ON, UH, OCTOBER 7TH, 2024. NEXT EXHIBIT, UH, THIS IS, UM, SHOWING, BUILDING FOUR ON THE FOURTH LEVEL, SHOWING THAT REPAIRS WERE COMPLETED AND IN GOOD, GOOD CONDITION. NEXT EXHIBIT. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION PENDING YOUR QUESTIONS. OKAY. AND YOUR STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT 11, WHICH INCLUDES FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. AND EXHIBIT 12, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS. STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER. THE FOLLOWING, AFFIRM THE FOUR CIVIL PENALTIES OF $18,449 AND 24 CENTS, $18,449 AND 24 CENTS, $257,260 AND 27 CENTS, AND $385,890 AND 41 CENTS, RESPECTIVELY, ASSESSED FROM THE ORDERS ISSUED OCTOBER 25TH, 2023. THAT'S T RV 2 0 2 3 1 2 5 1 27 AND TR 2 3 2 0 2 0 2 3 1 2 5 1 28, AND THE ORDER ISSUED FEBRUARY 28TH, 2024, TRV 2 0 2 4 0 4 0 2, I'M SORRY, 2 0 2, 4 0 2 6 4 1 5, AND T RV 2 0 2 4 0 2 6 4 1 6 FOR A COMBINED TOTAL OF $680,049 AND 16 CENTS. OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF THE COM, IF THE COMBINED TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT OF $680,049 AND 16 CENTS IS REDUCED, ALLOW 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE MODIFIED ORDER IS MAILED TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY IN FULL AT A REDUCED AMOUNT, AND THREE ON THE 31ST DAY FROM THE DATE THE MODIFIED ORDER IS MAILED. IF THE REDUCED PENALTY AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL REINSTATE, THE UNPAID PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL COMBINED PENALTY AMOUNT OF $680,049 AND 16 CENTS, INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE TO INTEREST, SHALL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL THAT THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION. OKAY, UH, THANK YOU, MELANIE. UH, SO AT THIS TIME I'LL GO AHEAD AND, UH, THERE'S NO OBJECTION. I WILL ADMIT EXHIBITS, UH, 11 AND 12, UH, AS, AS REQUESTED. AND ALSO JUST FOR SAKE OF EFFICIENCY, UH, WITHOUT OBJECTION, I'LL ADMIT THE, UH, PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVES, UH, YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR READERS. THERE'S ABOUT 140 PAGE, UH, EXHIBIT HERE, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND WITH THAT OBJECTION, I'LL ADMIT ALL OF THOSE EXHIBITS AND HEARING NONE, UH, EXHIBITS ARE ADMITTED. UH, SO I'LL NOW TURN TO MS. PENA. UM, MS. PENA AT THIS, AT THIS TIME, YOU ARE FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF, UH, THIS CODES REPRESENTATIVES IF YOU'D LIKE, OR IF NOT, YOU CAN JUST GO, UH, DIRECTLY INTO YOUR PRESENTATION. ORDINARILY WE GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES, BUT OUR TIMEKEEPER WILL ENSURE THAT YOU GET AT LEAST AS MUCH TIME AS THE CITY TUG, SO YOU CAN PROCEED HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND JUST GET RIGHT INTO MY PRESENTATION. GREAT. THANK YOU. [02:20:03] YOU PROCEED. DO YOU NEED US TO PUT ANYTHING ON THE SCREEN FOR YOU? DO YOU WANT TO YES, I DO HAVE A, A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AND I HAVE A SHORT VIDEO THAT'S THIS, THE BLUE ONE. IS THAT THE THIS? YES. OKAY. UH, DID WE GET THAT ON THE SCREEN? I DON'T, HE'S WORKING ON IT. IT'S, HE'S WORKING ON IT. IT'S OKAY. THE CHAIR, THERE'S ALSO SOMEONE ON THE PHONE. I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT, OH, OKAY. UM, THAT, WOULD THAT BE, UM, UM, UH, MS. NEIL OR MS. MONGO? IT, NEIL. OKAY. MS. NEIL, CAN YOU HEAR US? I THINK HE'S, HE'S REBOOTING. OH, HE OKAY. IT'S THE WHOLE THING IS ALRIGHT. SURE. CHERYL MONGO ONLINE. SHE'S CHERYL MONGO'S NOT ON THE LINE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. I MAY HAVE SOME EYE DROPS IN MY BACKPACK. YOU WANT? YEAH. MY SINUSES ARE, I GUESS THEY'RE BOTHERING ME A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I START, SORRY. YEAH, THE CEDAR MUST BE CEDAR SOMETHING BECAUSE MY EYES ARE ITCHY TOO. YES. SHOULD WE SEND JAMES HOME? WHY DON'T YOU GO? OKAY. THANK YOU. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, MY NAME IS BLAIR PENA AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE ARE ASKING FOR PENALTY FORGIVENESS OR A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION. UM, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE FIRST SLIDE, PLEASE, OR THE NEXT SLIDE. UM, YOU HEARD THESE NUMBERS EARLIER IN TOTAL WITH INTEREST. UM, WE'RE BEING ASSESSED $680,000 WORTH OF PENALTIES. IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. WE HAVE FOUR REASONS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR PENALTY REDUCTION. FIRST OFF, LUCERO WAS SET UP TO FAIL FROM THE BEGINNING BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY THAT I'M GONNA SHOW YOU HERE SHORTLY WAS CLEAR THAT THESE REPAIRS WOULD TAKE SIX TO 12 MONTHS, AND THE COMMISSIONERS HAD CONCERN ON IMPOSING A 90 DAY TIMEFRAME. ADDITIONALLY, I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS INCORRECTLY THOUGHT THEY COULD ONLY ALLOW 90 DAYS FOR REPAIRS. IN PREPARING FOR THIS MEETING, I CAME ACROSS A STATUTE WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE TIME, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD JUST BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK AND REPORT AS TO STATUS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE MEETING THE DEADLINES. SECONDLY, THE CITY REVIEW PROCESS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DELAY, AND I'LL SHOW YOU THAT IN MORE DETAIL. UM, THIRD, THE PENALTY AMOUNT OF $1,000 PER DAY PER VIOLATION FOR BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR, WE BELIEVE IS UNREASONABLE IN LIGHT OF THE PENALTIES THAT WERE ASSESSED AGAINST BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO. AND THE ONLY REASON I BELIEVE THAT THE PENALTIES CAME DOWN FOR BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR AT A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER DAY PER VIOLATION WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE OWNER HERE. UM, I DO HAVE MS. NEAL ON THE PHONE, AND SHE WILL TELL YOU THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, LUCERO DID NOT GET NOTICE OF THAT MEETING, AND THAT'S WHY THEY WEREN'T HERE IN FEBRUARY. UM, LASTLY, UM, FROM OUR CALCULATION, IT LOOKS LIKE THESE PENALTIES EXTEND AN EXTRA WEEK BEYOND WHEN THE WORK WAS COMPLETED. AND SO THAT'S ANOTHER, ANOTHER REASON FOR PENALTY FORGIVENESS. UM, IF WE COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE WITH THE VIDEO OR PLAY THE VIDEO SEPARATELY. UM, THIS IS A VIDEO I NEED TO SET IT UP FOR Y'ALL. IT'S ACTUALLY FROM Y'ALL'S WEBSITE OF THE MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE BACK IN OCTOBER 25TH OF 23. OBVIOUSLY, THAT MEETING IS A LOT LONGER, UH, THAN THE TIME I HAVE FOR A PRESENTATION. AND SO WHAT WE DID IS WE WENT AND CLIPPED SOME RELEVANT TESTIMONY THAT WAS SAID DURING THAT HEARING. AND BECAUSE IT WAS SO LONG AGO, WE WANNA PLAY THIS SHORT CLIP. IT'S ABOUT TWO [02:25:01] AND A HALF MINUTES LONG. UM, JUST TO REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY OF WHERE WE STOOD WHEN WE FIRST CAME HERE IN OCTOBER OF 23, AS IT RELATES TO BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO, IN CLOSING, I JUST WANT TO SAY, UH, THEY'VE WORKED DILIGENTLY, UH, TO GET AN EMERGENCY PERMIT AS WELL AS A BUILDING PERMIT TO FURTHER, UM, HELP IMPROVE THESE AREAS. HOWEVER, OUR THING IS THAT THE WORK HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS CHRISTIE NEAL. I'M THE REGIONAL PROPERTY MANAGER THAT OVERSEES LUCERO APARTMENTS. I KNOW THEY GOT THE TEMPORARY PERMITS. I KNOW THAT WE'RE WORKING ON A PERMANENT SOLUTION, UM, BUT WE JUST, I I'M ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME AND OR THE CONSIDERATION TO WHERE WE HAVE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM DECEMBER OF 2022 TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, UM, AND HOW WE CONTINUE TO MAKE DAILY PROGRESS. DO YOU THINK THAT IT'S FEASIBLE TO GET THESE DONE WITHIN THAT 90 DAY TIMEFRAME PLUS HOWEVER MUCH WOULD BE AVAILABLE GIVEN THAT A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER WEEK PENALTY? I THINK IT'S, UM, EXCUSE ME. I THINK IT'S FEASIBLE TO START THE PROCESS. WE'VE KIND OF PAINTED A PICTURE THAT'S A NO WIN. YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING YOU NEED 90 DAYS JUST TO EVEN START THE PROCESS, BUT WE CAN'T GIVE YOU ANYTHING FURTHER THAN THAT. SO I'M NOT SURE. NO, I SAID WE ARE GONNA START WITHIN THAT 90 DAYS, BUT IT'S GOING TO EXCEED UNTIL IT'S COMPLETED 90 DAYS. BUT, UM, ENGINEER SAID IT NORMALLY TAKES BETWEEN, UM, SIX TO 12 MONTHS, UM, TO COMPLETE A JOB LIKE THIS. I'D ALSO BE WILLING TO CONSIDER A, AGAIN, SINCE THERE'S THIS KIND OF QUALITY OF, UM, THEM GETTING REFUNDED THOSE FINES, IF, UH, THEY DO SPEND THE MONEY TO MAKE THESE REPAIRS, IT, IT ALMOST, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, IT ALMOST SEEMS AS THOUGH THE PENALTY CREATES A TIMELINE FOR THEM AS WELL, WHERE THE PENALTY ONLY REALLY STARTS TO KICK IN ONCE IT ACTUALLY EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE REPAIRS. SO I WOULD CONSIDER IN THAT CASE, UM, POTENTIALLY LOWERING THE CIVIL PENALTY. WELL, UH, IF THEY WERE GONNA GET OFFSET HERE, THEY WOULD, ONCE THEY, THE PROPERTY COMES INTO COMPLIANCE, THEY WOULD'VE TO REQUEST TO COME BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION, AND THEN THEY CAN OFF, UH, THEY CAN, UM, REQUEST PENALTY FORGIVENESS AND THEY CAN RE, YOU KNOW, BRING THEIR RECEIPTS AND SHOW YOU HOW MUCH, AND Y'ALL CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. BUT IT'S NOT KIND OF LIKE A, A GUARANTEED THING LIKE IT IS WITH, UH, RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANT Y'ALL MAKE A HAVE MORE INFORMED DECISION. SO THAT WAS OCTOBER. UM, AT THE TIME LUCERO CAME TO THIS HEARING, THEY HAD PULLED A PERMIT FOR EMERGENCY REPAIRS AND THEY HAD CONTRACTED WITH A COMPANY, AND THE VALUE OF THAT CONTRACT WAS $55,000. AND THEY ESTIMATED THAT WORK WAS GONNA BE COMPLETED BY JANUARY. HOWEVER, AFTER THAT MEETING, THE CONTRACTOR AND THE OWNER REALIZED THAT THESE REPAIRS WERE GONNA TAKE A LOT MORE WORK THAN HAD INITIALLY BEEN ANTICIPATED. AND SO LUCERO ENDED UP ENTERING INTO ANOTHER CONTRACT WITH ALL PRO TO PERFORM REPAIRS TO BUILDING ONE. AND THIS CONTRACT IS INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT THREE IN THE MATERIALS THAT WE PROVIDED, UH, IN ADVANCE. UM, THE SCOPE WAS TO REPAIR BUILDING ONE AND THE COST OF THE REPAIRS FOR THE LANDING SPECIFICALLY, WHICH IS THE MAJOR DEFICIENCY, UH, FROM THE, THE BSC ORDERS WAS $275,000 RIGHT AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED. OH, UH, CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE? AND THEN LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE AND THEN ONE MORE. OKAY. AFTER THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED, THEY DID APPLY FOR THE PERMIT AND WE'VE PROVIDED A COPY OF THE PERMIT FOR BUILDING ONE THAT THEY OBTAINED, UH, AS EXHIBIT FOUR. UM, BECAUSE THE PERMITTING PROCESS CAN TAKE A WHILE, LUCERO PAID EXPEDITED FEES IN ORDER FOR THE CITY TO TURN IT AROUND QUICKLY. IF WE MOVE FORWARD, WE NEXT HAD THE FEBRUARY 28TH, 2024 MEETING. OH, I'M SORRY. I WAS STILL ON THAT LAST SLIDE. . UM, NOW AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT LUCERO WAS NOT HERE. THERE WAS NO ONE HERE. AND THE FIRST TIME THAT LUCERO'S MANAGEMENT KNEW ABOUT THE MEETING. AND WHAT TOOK PLACE WAS AROUND MARCH 15TH WHEN THEY GOT A COPY OF THE ORDER, THE ORDER FROM FEBRUARY 28 REQUIRED REPAIRS AGAIN WITHIN 90 DAYS, WHICH PER THE PRIOR TESTIMONY WAS NEVER GONNA HAPPEN. AND THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED DURING THAT FEBRUARY MEETING FOR IMPOSING A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER DAY PER VIOLATION WAS BECAUSE THERE WASN'T A REPRESENTATIVE FOR LUCERO HERE. AND IT UPSET THE COMMISSIONERS WHO THOUGHT LUCERO WASN'T TAKING THIS, UM, SERIOUSLY, WHICH COULDN'T HAVE BEEN FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. UM, [02:30:01] WHEN THE SECOND ORDER CAME DOWN, THAT'S ACTUALLY WHEN I GOT INVOLVED. AND THEN I CAME TO VISIT Y'ALL DURING THE JUNE MEETING TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER MATTER. UM, IF EUREKA HAD KNOWN ABOUT THE FEBRUARY MEETING, THOUGH, THEY WOULD'VE BEEN HERE, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE FINE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED IN THE WAY THAT IT WAS. IT TOOK THE FINE FROM BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO, WHICH WERE $500 A WEEK TO $21,000 PER WEEK FOR BUILDING THREE, AND I THINK IT'S $14,000 PER WEEK FOR BUILDING FOUR. SO IF WE LOOK AT THE NEXT SLIDE, I DID INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE THAT EUREKA GOT, AND WHILE THE COVER LETTER OF THAT NOTICE SAID IT APPLIED TO BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR IN THE ENVELOPE ITSELF, WE ONLY HAD THE ORDER FOR BUILDING FOUR. FOR WHATEVER REASON, BUILDING THREE'S ORDER WASN'T INCLUDED. AND WE HAVE THAT NOTICE, UM, LISTED AS EXHIBIT FIVE. UM, IN APRIL 10TH, SHORTLY AFTER GETTING NOTICE OF THE BSC ORDER, THEY ENTERED INTO ANOTHER CONTRACT TO REPAIR BUILDINGS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR FOR A TOTAL PRICE OF $774,000. IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, I'M GONNA TELL YOU THAT THERE WERE ISSUES, EVEN THOUGH THE EXPEDITED FEE TO GET THE PERMITS WAS PAID, THE PERMIT GOT DELAYED. UM, AND RATHER THAN SEVEN DAYS, IT TOOK 10 DAYS, BUT EVENTUALLY THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED AND THE WORK WAS COMPLETED. IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, THE NOTES THAT ARE AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR THE CITY SHOW THAT THE WORK WAS COMPLETED SEPTEMBER 30TH. THAT FIRST OUTLINE THAT I HAVE IS FROM THE CITY'S, UH, WEBSITE, BUT FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE PENALTY STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH, UH, OCTOBER 7TH, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT ADDITION WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $36,000 A WEEK BEING ADDED ON. UM, IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, AS SOON AS WE FOUND OUT I REQUESTED THESE STATEMENTS AND WE WANTED TO BRING THIS BACK TO YOU ALL JUST AS QUICKLY AS WE COULD. UM, ALONG THE WAY THOUGH, EVEN THOUGH I HAD REQUESTED COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS, I DIDN'T GET COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS, I HAD TO GO BACK AND FOLLOW UP WITH ANOTHER REQUEST. IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, I THINK THERE'S TWO STANDARDS HERE UNDER YOUR RULES. IT'S, DID WE FAIL TO TAKE ACTION NECESSARY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S ORDINANCES AFTER RECEIVING THIS NOTICE? AND I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. LUCERO TOLD YOU AT THE VERY BEGINNING, THEY NEEDED SIX TO 12 MONTHS, AND THEY COMPLETED THE WORK WITHIN THAT TIMEFRAME FOR WHICH THEY TOLD YOU IS WHAT THEY NEEDED. ADDITIONALLY, UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES ARE PROHIBITED FROM EXCESSIVE FINES. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT FINES FOR BUILDING ONE AND TWO BEING $19,000, UM, WHEREAS WE'VE GOT 260,000 AND 300,000, UM, FOR BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR, WE THINK THAT'S EVIDENCE OF BEING EXCESSIVE. UM, NEXT SLIDE. I DO WANNA JUST POINT OUT THAT WHEN I WENT BACK TO LOOK AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION TWO 14.01 TALKS ABOUT HOW A MUNICIPALITY CAN'T GIVE MORE THAN 90 DAYS UNLESS THEY SUBMIT A DETAILED PLAN AND A TIME SCHEDULE THAT ESTABLISHES THE WORK CANNOT REASONABLY BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS. AND THAT IF Y'ALL ALLOW MORE THAN 90 DAYS, THEN THERE IS BASICALLY THIS CHECKUP PROGRESS WHERE THE OWNER'S GOTTA COME BACK AND TELL YOU WHAT HAS HAPPENED SO THAT THEY CAN SHOW COMPLIANCE IN MEETING THE TIMELINE. I THINK IF LUCERO HAD BEEN GIVEN THIS ALTERNATIVE OPTION OF COMING BACK AND REPORTING TO YOU ALL, YOU ALL WOULD'VE BEEN KEPT IN THE LOOP CODE, WOULD'VE BEEN KEPT IN THE LOOP. AND I THINK THAT THE ORDER OF 90 DAYS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BECAUSE THEY WOULD'VE HAD THE SIX TO 12 MONTHS. OKAY. THANK YOU, MS. PENA. I'M GONNA, I HAVE TO STOP YOU THERE. I'M ADVISED BY MY TIMEKEEPER THAT, CAN I JUST SAY ONE THING, ONE LAST THING, SORRY. I'LL GIVE YOU, SPOT YOU 30 SECONDS. IF YOU CAN, YOU'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUM UP BEFORE WE GO TO TO VOTE. SO EXHIBIT 10 IS COPIES OF THE CHECKS THAT OUR CLIENT ACTUALLY PAID THE CONTRACTOR TO GET THESE REPAIRED. WE'VE GOT 13 CHECKS AND THEY ADD UP TO $1,155,218. SO THAT SHOWS THESE WERE SIGNIFICANT REPAIRS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU MS. PENA. AND SO, UM, I GUESS, UH, WHAT I'LL DO FIRST, UH, SO WE DO HAVE, UH, WE DO HAVE SOMEONE ON THE LINE. UH, THIS IS MS. NEIL. UM, THE WAY THIS ORDINARILY WORKS IS THAT WE ALLOT, UH, TIME PER SIDE RATHER THAN PER TESTIFYING WITNESS, BUT, UH, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ANNOUNCE THAT UP FRONT, MS. NEIL, IF YOU JUST HAVE A BRIEF AT, YOU KNOW, 60 SECONDS IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO ANYTHING MS. PENA SAID, UH, WE'LL, WE'LL HEAR YOU. UH, BEFORE WE MOVE TO DISCUSSION. YES. HI. GOOD EVENING. UM, [02:35:01] RESPECTIVE BOARD MEMBERS, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WE DID AT LUCERO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. UH, YEAH, WE, WE CAN HEAR YOU. PLEASE PROCEED. THANK YOU, MS. NEIL. OKAY. THE, UM, SCOPE OF WORK EXCEEDED THE WORK, UM, WHICH THE, UM, CITY OF AUSTIN HAD ASKED US TO DO. SO WE WENT, WE EXCEEDED THAT. UM, AND THE DELAY FROM WHEN WE, FOR STARTING IN JANUARY, WAS DUE TO GOING BACK TO A NEW ENGINEER SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DISPLACE ANY RESIDENTS, UM, WHICH WAS THE BIG CONCERN FOR ME IN OCTOBER GOING INTO THE HOLIDAYS. AND A LOT OF RESIDENTS OUT THERE WERE VERY VOCAL ABOUT THAT. SO WE WERE ABLE TO DO THESE REPAIRS WITHOUT INCONVENIENCING, UM, ANY OF THE RESIDENTS. AND WE JUST WANT TO SAY WE HAVE BEEN COMPLYING, HAD I GOT THAT NOTICE IN FEBRUARY, I WOULD HAVE BEEN THERE. I AM VERY ACTIVE. I, I, I COMMUNICATE, I OVER-COMMUNICATE, UM, AND I TRY TO MOVE VERY, VERY SWIFTLY AND QUICKLY WHEN THERE'S A VIOLATION OR ANYTHING CONCERNING LUCERO. SO I, I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT. AND I MEAN, I HAD TALKED TO MR. ERIC FAN SEVERAL TIMES LEADING UP TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING, AND I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED, AND I WE'RE, WE'RE ALL BUSY. UM, BUT COMING OUT TO THE PROPERTY AND US SPEAKING FACE TO FACE, I, I, I WAS NEVER EVEN NOTIFIED IN PERSON VIA TEXT, UM, ON MY CELL PHONE, WHICH WE COMMUNICATE A LOT ON. SO I JUST WANNA BRING THAT TO THE BOARD IN CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING A DECISION HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MS. NEIL. UM, I, I APPRECIATE THAT. UH, SO WITH THAT, UM, I'M GONNA OPEN THE FLOOR TO MY, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE. UH, OKAY. SO VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, UH, I AM CURIOUS FOR EITHER OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, UM, TYPICALLY BEFORE ANY, UH, BSC MEETING, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MAILED, UM, BY CERTIFIED MAIL, UH, NOTICE OF THE HEARING. SO IN OUR PACKETS, WE HAVE A COPY THAT SAYS THAT IT WAS DELIVERED TO THE FRONT DESK RECEPTION SLASH MAIL ROOM AT THE PROPERTY ON FEBRUARY 20TH, 2024. SO Y'ALL ARE SAYING THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THAT AT ALL AND HAD NO NOTICE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. IN SPEAKING WITH MS. NEAL, THE MINUTE WE GOT THE ORDER IN MARCH OF 15, UH, MARCH 15TH, WE WENT TO GO AND SCRUB EVERYWHERE TO FIND OUT WHERE THIS NOTICE WAS. AND TO THIS DAY, WE'VE NEVER FOUND THE ORIGINAL NOTICE THAT CAME IN. UM, SO I, I'M NOT SAYING IT DIDN'T GET DELIVERED, UM, BUT SOMEWHERE THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION AND IT DIDN'T GET IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO NEEDED TO HAVE IT. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER OLUGO. HOLD ON. UH, SO, UM, I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS, UH, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DO THE, UM, THE MATH, UH, BETWEEN THE BSC MEETING, THE FIRST ONE IN OCTOBER TO WHEN YOU FINALLY, YOU KNOW, GOT A PLAN TOGETHER TO, YOU KNOW, FILE THE PERMITS, IT WAS AROUND FOUR MONTHS. SO, YOU KNOW, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, JANUARY, OR FEBRUARY, AND IT WAS ROUGHLY DEPENDING ON THE COUNTS, IT LET'S BE GENEROUS, YOU KNOW, MID-FEBRUARY WHEN YOU GOT THE INITIAL WORK DONE. LET'S NOT, YOU KNOW, LET'S LEAVE THE QUESTION OF MAY, MAY ALONE. WHY WOULD IT TAKE YOU, YOU KNOW, THREE TO FOUR MONTHS TO GET EVEN JUST START THE PLANNING FOR WHAT IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE VIOLATIONS AT AN EMERGENCY OF WHAT IS HAPPENING AT THE PROPERTY? MS. NEAL TOUCHED ON THIS EARLIER. UM, THERE WAS ONE PLAN THAT WAS IN PLACE THAT WAS GONNA REQUIRE DISPLACING THE RESIDENTS. THEY WERE GONNA HAVE TO BE MOVED OUT AND MOVED INTO ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS. WHEN MANAGEMENT WAS DISCUSSING THAT WITH THE RESIDENTS, THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY DID NOT WANNA MOVE. AND THE MEETING WAS IN OCTOBER, AS MS. NEAL REFERENCED, YOU HAVE THE HOLIDAYS THERE. AND SO MANAGEMENT NEEDED TO GO AND REVISE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS SO THAT IT DIDN'T REQUIRE THE RESIDENTS TO BE DISPLACED AND COME BACK. AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE REASON FOR THAT DELAY WAS BECAUSE THE PLANS NEEDED TO BE REDONE IN ORDER TO AVOID DISPLACING THE RESIDENTS. UNDERSTANDABLE. BUT, BUT I MEAN, IF I UNDERSTAND, I WANTED TO DISPLACE THE RESIDENTS, BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALSO THE QUESTION OF EVERY WEEK THAT PASSES WAS A WEEK, SOMEBODY COULD HAVE GOTTEN SIGNIFICANTLY INJURED OR DIED IN THE PROPERTY. AND SO MY QUESTION IS, LIKE, IF THE ARGUMENT TRYING TO PUT FORWARD IS YOU GUYS HANDLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, YOU KNOW, THREE, FOUR MONTHS, UP TO SIX MONTHS, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WANNA PAIR DOWN THE PERMITTING [02:40:01] ISSUES, THAT'S NOT HOW ONE WOULD HANDLE A LIFE AND DEATH SITUATION DUE TO A, YOU KNOW, NEAR COLLAPSING PROPERTY. SO THE TEMPORARY SHORING THAT WAS DONE IN SEPTEMBER IS MY UNDERSTANDING, DEALT WITH THE IMMEDIATE ISSUES. UM, AND THAT'S WHAT THE EMERGENCY PERMIT WAS GRANTED FOR, TO DO THAT SHORING TO MAKE IT SAFE WHILE THE REPAIRS COULD THEN, UM, BE, BE PLANNED AND THEN IMPLEMENTED. UM, INSPECTOR FINN, UM, I REMEMBER A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR PRESENTATION FROM FEBRUARY, BUT CAN YOU TELL ME MORE ABOUT YOUR PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THE SITUATION WAS IN TERMS OF THE SAFETY AND CONCERNS FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND THIS PROPERTY? AS IN, DID THEY ACTUALLY MAKE A MEANINGFUL CHANGE FROM, UH, OCTOBER TO FEBRUARY IN TERMS OF SAFETY, OR AT LEAST FROM MY RECOLLECTION, IS THAT IT WAS SOMEWHAT STAGNANT IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BEING DONE? YES, I BELIEVE THAT, AS I REMEMBER, IT WAS SOMEWHAT STAGNANT. UM, AS YOU COULD SEE FROM SOME, FROM SOME OF THE PHOTOS, UM, UH, SOME AREAS WERE OPENED, UH, TO, I GUESS TO ALLOW FOR DRYING OR TO SEE WHAT THE AREAS LOOK LIKE. UM, I WASN'T AWARE OF THE, THE TENANT INVOLVEMENT AS FAR AS THEY DON'T WANNA BE REMOVED OR WHATNOT. I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY, UH, COMPLAINTS ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU, INSPECTOR. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, VIC? YEAH, JUST A BRIEF QUESTION ON THE, THE TENANT DISPLACEMENT ISSUE. UM, I, I HAVE A BACKGROUND IN LEGAL AID SO THAT, UH, IN THE HOUSING SECTION, SO THAT'S SOMETHING I, I'M, I'M PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO. WHEN THIS DISCUSSION WAS OCCURRING, WAS LUCERO OFFERING TO COVER MOVING EXPENSES, WERE THEY SAYING WE'RE GONNA MOVE YOU INTO ANOTHER UNIT AT THE SAME PRICE? OR WERE THEY KIND OF TELLING THE, THE TENANTS, IF YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO MOVE UNDER THIS CURRENT CONSTRUCTION PLAN, AND YOU'RE KIND OF ON YOUR OWN TO DO THAT, DO YOU UNDER, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WERE OFFERING TO HELP THE TENANTS WITH THAT DISPLACEMENT IN THAT FIRST CONSTRUCTION PLAN? YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. UM, I'M NOT SURE IF MS. NEAL IS STILL ON THE LINE. SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT. YES, YES, I DO. UM, NO, WE WERE GOING TO, UM, PAY FOR THE RELOCATION INTO TEMPORARY HOUSING, WHETHER THAT WAS AIRBNBS OR IT WAS HOTELS. THE CONCERNS WITH THE RESIDENTS WERE THAT THERE WERE SINGLE PARENTS, UM, THE SCHOOL LOCATION THAT WAS THERE WOULD BE TOO FAR TO TRAVEL, UM, WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION. UM, AND IT WOULD BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THEIR JOBS. AND SO THEY DIDN'T WANNA HAVE TO PUT THEIR CHILDREN THROUGH THAT NOR THEMSELVES. AND, BUT WE WERE GONNA PAY FOR THE RELOCATION. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND WHAT, BUT ONE MORE TINY QUESTION ON THAT IS, WAS YOUR ASSESSMENT, UM, BECAUSE OF THE TEMPORARY HOUSING IT WAS GONNA LOOK AT, IT WAS LOOKING AT HOTELS OR, UM, AIRBNBS, THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COULD HAVE BEEN CONTAINED AND LIKE MINIMIZE DISPLACEMENT AND HAVE JUST PEOPLE MOVE INTO THE SA INTO OPEN UNITS ON THE PROPERTY? OR WAS THAT JUST NOT, UH, REALISTIC AT THAT TIME? UM, THE PROPERTY USUALLY MAINTAINS A 99% OCCUPANCY. AND SO WE MAY HAVE ONE OR TWO UNITS AVAILABLE AT ANY GIVEN TIME. AND SO AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME FRAME, WHILE WE WERE DEALING WITH THIS RECONSTRUCTION, WE WERE, WE HAD ONE VACANT UNIT, SO THAT WASN'T GONNA BE SUFFICIENT TO RELOCATE 60, 70 RESIDENTS AT A TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. UM, ARE THERE OTHER, ARE THERE OTHER QUES, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, UH, THIS FOR STAFF INSPECTOR FIN AND THE OTHER ONE OF THE STATEMENTS WAS THAT THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE FOR THE MEETING. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF MATERIAL HERE AND I, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START TO BEGIN TO LOOK. SURELY THAT WOULD'VE BEEN SENT CERTIFIED AND SOMEONE SIGNED OFF HAVING RECEIVED THAT. IS THAT THE CASE? CAN I, CASE, CASE I ANSWER THAT? UM, IT'S MELANIE, ALL WE DID RECEIVE, UH, WE SENT OUT SEVEN NOTICES FOR THAT HEARING IN FEBRUARY. UH, TWO WERE TO THE OWNERS, ONE TO THE REGISTER REGISTERED AGENT THREE WERE TWO LENDERS. UM, WE RECEIVED IT. I'M LOOKING AT ONE OF THE SIGNED RETURN RECEIPTS, WHICH WAS SIGNED BY SOMEONE NAMED BRENDA. LOOKS LIKE TI OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, THERE'S NO DATE ON THAT, BUT SHE DID RECEIVE IT AND SIGN FOR IT. AND THEN I BELIEVE WE HAD ANOTHER SIGNED RETURN RECEIPT THAT I'M NOT LOOKING AT. BUT, UM, THEY WERE ALSO POSTED ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE NOTICES OF HEARING THE NOTICES OF ORDER. EVERYTHING WAS POSTED ALONG WITH COPIES OF THE ORDERS IN THE PAPER. GOES IN THE PAPER. WE DO A PUBLIC NOTICE IN THE PAPER SURE. FOR THE HEARING AND FOR THE ORDERS. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . SO MS. PENA, YOU'RE CLAIMING THAT NO ONE [02:45:01] IN YOUR ENTIRE OPERATION HAD ANY NOTIFICATION AT THE, OF THE MEETING? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE NOTICES WEREN'T DELIVERED. UM, BECAUSE I'VE, I'VE SEEN THE REGISTER NOW. YOU'RE JUST SAYING THEY DIDN'T MAKE THEIR WAY TO YOU. IT'S NOT JUST ME. THEY DIDN'T MAKE THEIR WAY TO MS. NEAL, WHO, WHO IS THE REGIONAL MANAGER FOR THIS PROPERTY AND WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING ALL OF THESE NOTICES. AND I KNOW THERE WAS ALSO A TURNOVER IN STAFF AT THIS PARTICULAR APARTMENT COMPLEX. AND SO HAVING CONTINUITY, UM, I THINK WAS AN ISSUE THAT I THINK HAS ALSO BEEN RESOLVED SINCE MS. NEAL, UM, TOOK OVER THIS ACCOUNT. UM, AND I'D ALSO SAY IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, UH, MR. FINN, THAT THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO VIOLATIONS AGAINST THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU, MS. PENA. ALL RIGHT. THANK, THANK ONE MORE QUESTION. OH, CERTAINLY. SORRY FOR COUNSEL. THAT STATUTE THAT SHE WAS READING, THAT WE ACTUALLY DID HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROCEED TO GIVE MORE THAN THE 90 DAYS. WOULD YOU BE IN AGREEMENT? I MEAN, IT'S OBVIOUS, BUT WE ALWAYS TYPICALLY OPERATE UNDER THE PREMISE THAT THE 90 DAY IS THAT WINDOW THAT YES CHAIR, UH, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER. SO I DO WISH TO MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SO WHAT SUBSECTION J OF, OF TWO 14.001 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ACTUALLY SAYS IS THAT, UH, A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT ALLOW THE OWNER, ET CETERA, MORE THAN, UH, OWNER LIEN HOLDER OR MORTGAGEE MORE THAN 90 DAYS TO REPAIR, REMOVE, OR DEMOLISH THE BUILDING OR FULLY PERFORM ALL WORK REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER UNLESS THE OWNER LIEN HOLDER OR MORTGAGEE NUMBER ONE SUBMITS A DETAILED PLAN AND TIME SCHEDULE FOR THE WORK AT THE HEARING. AND NUMBER TWO ESTABLISHES AT THE HEARING THAT THE WORK CANNOT REASONABLY BE COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS BECAUSE OF THE SCOPE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE WORK. SO THAT PLAN AND SCHEDULE WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING BEFORE YOU ALL COULD CONSIDER MORE THAN 90 DAYS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. UH, ONE MOMENT. ADVICE CHAIR. UH, UH, UH, COUNSEL, I'M GONNA STAY WITH YOU FOR A MOMENT IF YOU DON'T MIND. SO I, I GATHER WHAT THE, THE, UH, WHAT MS. PENNEY WAS PROBABLY REFERRING TO WAS SUBSECTION K. UM, IF, IF THE MUNICIPALITY ALLOWS THE OWNER LIEN HOLDER MORTGAGING MORE THAN 90 DAYS TO COMPLETE ANY PART OF THE WORK, THAT'S, THAT TRIGGERS THE CONTINUING REPORTING. IS THAT, IS THAT SORT OF, SO IN OTHER WORDS, SUBSECTION J REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION ON THE FRONT END. AND, AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SORT OF REFLECTED IN OUR, UM, RULES AND REGULATIONS RULE 4 0 6 EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN CERTAIN CASES. AND THAT, SO THAT'S THE FOUR ADDITIONAL PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT YES, THE THE TWO ARE KIND OF GO HAND IN HAND, RIGHT? YEAH. SO THE ONE IS SORT OF IMPLEMENTING THE OTHER CORRECT. SO STICKING IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE FOR A MOMENT. GOING BACK TO, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS POINT. SO I READ, UH, SECTION 54.035 SUBSECTION, A SUBDIVISION ONE, UH, IT REQUIRES A NOTICE OF ALL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION PANELS HAS TO BE GIVEN BY, UH, AND I BELIEVE THESE ARE DIS JUNK. SO IT'S BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED OR BY DELIVERY UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE USING A SIGNATURE CONFIRMATION SERVICE TO THE RECORD OWNERS OF THE AFFECTED PROPERTY. AND, UM, AND, AND SO, UH, I GUESS THAT'S DETERMINED WITH THE, THE TCAD IS, IS IT YOUR OPINION BASED ON THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE ADMITTED AT THE OCTOBER 25TH HEARING, UH, SHOWING THE SEVEN NOTICES REFERENCED BY CODE REVIEW ANALYST, ALLIE, THAT, THAT, THAT THOSE NOTICES WERE, UH, COMPLIANT WITH SECTION 54.035 A ONE. AND THAT'S NOT A HY ONE. THAT'S SUBSECTION A SUBDIVISION ONE. AND I APOLOGIZE, CHAIR, I WOULD NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE NOTICES. NO RUSH. AND ARE, ARE YOU SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO THE NOTICES THAT CAN BE FOUND IN EXHIBIT? YEAH, SO I'M TWO AND THREE. I WAS ACTUALLY THE PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET MM-HMM . IF WE CAN GET THOSE UP ON THE SCREEN, BUT, SO WE WERE ASKED TODAY TO ADMIT 11 AND 12, WHICH ARE THE NEW ONES, BUT I, I'M REFERRING IN THE READER, IT'S, UH, PREVIOUSLY EXHIBITED, PARDON ME, PARDON ME. PREVIOUSLY EXHIBITED CAN'T TALK TODAY, PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBIT, UM, FOR DERWOOD STREET, I THINK IT'S SIX THROUGH 10. IT WOULD BE FOR THE FEBRUARY, 2024. I'M SORRY. I THINK, YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I WAS GETTING THE DATE WRONG. YEAH, SO IT'D PROBABLY BE EXHIBIT SIX MAYBE? YEAH. OKAY. I BELIEVE SIX THROUGH 10 ARE THE, UM, THREE PIECES EXHIBITED, ADMITTED ON FEBRUARY. THANK YOU. I TAKE THE VILLAGE HERE, . SO, YEAH. UM, SO YEAH, I GUESS, I GUESS WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M, UH, WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS JUST BASED ON THE, THE EX THE, THE NOTICES IN EXHIBIT [02:50:01] SIX. THESE WERE, THESE WERE ADDRESSED TO, UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, 2013 TRAVIS OAK CREEK. WAIT, AM I IN THE RIGHT? I JUST WANNA SEE IF THERE'S ANY, IF THERE'S ANY LEGAL OUT HERE, IS THERE ANY ISSUE WITH THE NOTICE THAT WOULD PUT IT OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISION IN THE OPINION OF CITY'S COUNCIL? APOLOGIES, SIR. I THINK WE'RE STILL TRYING TO GET THE, THE RATING TODAY. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO 9 47. SO WE JUST WANNA WATCH THE TIME. UNDERSTOOD. UH, THANK YOU MS. ALLY CHAIR. DO WE NEED A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING? UM, I LIKE TO LIVE DANGEROUSLY. LET'S, LET'S GIVE IT ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES. LET'S GO, UH, CHAIR. PERHAPS WE COULD MOVE ON TO OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE, UM, COUNSEL DISCUSSES THIS. THAT IS REASONABLE. SO, UH, UH, WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING INTO THAT, UH, COUNSEL, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RECOGNIZE, UH, VICE CHAIR. I DID HAVE A QUESTION. UM, THIS ALSO GOES TO THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. UM, IT SEEMED EARLIER YOU SAID THAT PART OF THE REASON WHY, UM, THIS FEBRUARY NOTICE MAY HAVE FALLEN THROUGH THE CRACKS AT THE TIME IS BECAUSE OF STAFF TURNOVER. YOU ALSO SAID THAT THAT HAS BEEN RESOLVED SINCE, UM, THE WOMAN ON THE PHONE, UH, I COULDN'T QUITE REMEMBER HER NAME. UM, MS. NEIL, MS. NEIL, UH, TOOK OVER. BUT IF I'M RECALLING CORRECTLY, MS. NEIL WAS IN OUR OCTOBER MEETING. IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT HER TENURE AS REGIONAL MANAGER PREDATED THAT FEBRUARY MEETING. I'M WONDERING WHAT THE TIMELINE IS FOR THAT STAFF TURNOVER THAT IT WOULD'VE STILL CAUSED PROBLEMS WITH THE NOTICE IN FEBRUARY. SO MS. NEIL IS ACTUALLY LOCATED IN HOUSTON, UM MM-HMM . AND THERE WERE ISSUES THAT CONTINUED INTO FEBRUARY. UM, MS. NEAL MOVED HER FAMILY DOWN HERE, UH, TO OVERSEE THE REPAIRS TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THEY WERE BEING PERFORMED. AND I KNOW, UM, FOR A WHILE SHE REPLACED THE PERSON, UM, WHO WAS NO LONGER WITH LUCERO. UM, AND I, I THINK IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN, I THINK FEBRUARY, UH, SHOWED SOME INTERNAL PROBLEMS COME TO LIGHT AND THEY WERE ABLE TO BE FIXED AT THAT TIME. MM-HMM . OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER, UH, COMMISSIONER OLUGO, THIS IS MAYBE RELATIVELY MORE SMALL FISH, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO ASK, UM, DISTRICT MANAGER MOORE, UH, ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS HERE IS THAT THE, WE CHARGED THEM FOR AN EXTRA WEEK PASSED WHEN THE WORK WAS COMPLETED. CAN YOU SORT OF ELUCIDATE, UM, HOW EXACTLY THIS, LIKE THE, THE WEEK BY WEEK INTEREST CHARGING WORKS AND DID WE OVERCHARGE THEM BY A WEEK OF, UH, PENALTIES? HELLO? DIVISION MANAGER, ROBERT MOORE, UH, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT? YEAH. UM, IT IS A WEEKLY CONFIGURATION, SO I MEAN, IF IT IS OVER A WEEK, UM, WE CAN FIX THAT. YEAH. ALRIGHT. PERFECT. SO, UM, I WOULD, I WOULD LOVE TO REVIEW, SO DOES THE WEEK START ON SUNDAY OR MONDAY, OR LIKE, HOW, HOW EXACTLY DO WE CALCULATE WHEN THIS SORT OF PENALTY STARTS? IT WAS, WELL, IT WOULD START ON THE DAY THE 40 OR THE 90TH 91ST DAY OF WHEN THE ORDER WAS MAILED. UM, THAT'S WHEN THE, THE TIMEFRAME STARTS, THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED. AND THEN, SO 91 DAYS AFTER THAT IS WHEN THE PENALTIES WOULD START TO BE, OH, NO. SO, SO THE ISSUE HERE ISN'T ON THE START, IT'S ON THE END. RIGHT. SO IT SEEMS HERE THAT THE WORK WAS APPROVED, LIKE FINALIZED AS IN LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOOD ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, BUT THE, IT SAYS MARKS THE ACTUAL COMPLIANCE STATE AS OCTOBER 7TH, WHICH THOSE ARE ON TWO DIFFERENT, LIKE, I THINK THOSE ARE LIKE MM-HMM . JUST ON THE SLIDE OVER. AND SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND SORT OF WHY THAT DISPARITY EXISTS AND HOW THIS SORT OF, OH, MR. JAMES HAS AN ANSWER FOR ME. YEAH. WE'RE CHECKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PERMIT WASN'T CLOSED ON THE LATER DATE WE MAY HAVE, UM, BASED THE, UM, UH, COMPLIANCE ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE. OKAY. PERFECT. AND, UH, WHEN DO YOU THINK YOU CAN GET THAT CONFIRMATION? WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING NOW. THANK YOU INSPECTOR FINN. SO, UM, IF, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT WE HAVE EARNED, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO, YOU KNOW, DEDUCT THAT, UM, UNNECESSARY, YOU KNOW, EXTRA EXTRANEOUS, UM, FEE. SO LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU GOT THAT. OKAY. UM, VICE, IF I CAN SUGGEST, UM, BUT IF THERE ARE [02:55:01] MORE QUESTIONS PEOPLE, IF YOU WERE TO ASK THEM, OF COURSE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE STILL WAITING ON ANSWERS FOR. DO WE POTENTIALLY WANT TO CLOSE THE OPEN SESSION AND BEGIN DISCUSSION WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE FINAL ANSWERS ON THOSE TWO? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I THINK THAT, UM, UH, UH, SONYA AND JAMES CAN GET OUR ATTENTION IF THEY, IF THEY NEED TO ONCE WE'VE, UH, PIVOTED TO THE NEXT PHASE. UM, SO, UH, I'LL TAKE THAT. CAN I TAKE THAT AS A MOTION? I WILL MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MOTION THE HEARING SECOND. OKAY. SO, UH, MEMBERS, YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OLUGO WANTS TO MOVE INTO THE, UM, UH, THE NEXT STAGE. I THINK BEFORE BE BEFORE, UH, PUTTING THAT MOTION TO A VOTE, I'M GONNA GIVE PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUM. AND SO, MS. PENA, DO YOU HAVE A, UM, DO YOU HAVE A BRIEF SUMMATION? THANK YOU. I WAS JUST GONNA ASK IF I HAD A CHANCE FOR A SUMMATION. SURE. UM, WE'RE ASKING THAT THE PENALTIES BE REASONABLE. UM, AND JUST TO THROW SOME MATH OUT THERE, IF I DID THE MATH AND ASSESS THE SAME PENALTIES FOR BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR THAT WERE ASSESSED FOR BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO, I THINK YOU COME TO A $9,000 FINE FOR EACH ONE. UM, IT TOOK US A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME TO GET BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO FIXED, BUT THERE WAS A FIRE LIT AND WE GOT BUILDINGS THREE AND FOURS DONE A LOT QUICKER, WHICH IS WHY IF WE HAD THE SAME PENALTY THAT WAS ASSESSED AGAINST BUILDING ONE AND TWO, THE AMOUNT WOULD'VE ONLY BEEN $9,000 PER BUILDING. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR TIME HERE TODAY. UM, AND WE THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THIS REQUEST. OKAY, THANK YOU MS. PENA. UM, I'M GONNA, UH, LET THE CITY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, UH, FOR SUMMATION AS WELL. UM, INSPECTOR FINN, WOULD YOU CARE TO, DO YOU HAVE ANY REBUTTAL OR ANY FINAL REMARKS BEFORE WE MOVE TO, TO MOTIONS? WELL, IN, IN CHECKING THE, MY NOTES, UM, ALTHOUGH THE, THE PERMIT FOR BUILDING ONE, IT ACTUALLY SAYS IT WAS FINALIZED SEPTEMBER 30TH. HOWEVER, I DIDN'T FIND IT IN THE SYSTEM UNTIL, UH, OCTOBER THE SEVENTH. AND AS I EXPLAINED BEFORE, UH, THERE WAS WORK IN PROGRESS, HOWEVER, THERE WAS, UH, AS YOU SAW IN THE PHOTOS, THERE WERE AREAS THROUGHOUT BUILDINGS ONE AND TWO THAT WERE EXPOSED. SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THEY WEREN'T DOING WORK EVERY DAY OR WHATNOT, IT'S JUST THAT THE WORK WAS, THE, THE PERMITS WEREN'T FINALIZED UNTIL SEPTEMBER THE 30TH, EVEN THOUGH WORK WAS STILL GOING AND CERTAIN, UH, CEILINGS IN WALKWAYS WERE STILL OPEN AND EXPOSED, THEY WERE, I GUESS, STILL EXAMINING OR FINDING WHAT'S WRONG, YOU KNOW, TO, SO THAT THEY CAN CORRECTLY REPAIR IT. SURE. OKAY. THANK YOU. CODE INSPECTOR. AND I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT, UM, PRACTICALLY EVERY ORDER HAS IT WRITTEN INTO IT THAT THE OWNER MUST CONTACT DSD OR, OR THE CITY TO REQUEST THAT FINAL INSPECTION. OKAY. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU JAMES. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A, A MOTION, UH, SECONDED TO, UH, ADJOURN THE PUBLIC PORTION, UH, SORRY TO, UH, CONCLUDE THE PUBLIC PORTION. AND, UH, IS THERE, UM, LEMME JUST SAY, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. UH, ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. SO THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING, UH, BEFORE MOVING TO THE, UH, MOTIONS AND DISCUSSION, I, I, I DO NOW THINK THAT WITH, I'M SHOWING WE HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPARE. SO I, I DO THINK TO GIVE THIS A PROPER, UH, CONSIDERATION, IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT WE ADD TIME. AND I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND PROPOSE THAT WE ADD, UM, WELL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION I THAT WE ADD 15 MINUTES AFTER 10 TO END AT 10 15. OKAY. WE HAVE SECOND. OKAY. SO, UH, MEMBERS YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. SO WE ARE, UH, WE ARE HERE UNTIL 10 15 IF WE NEED TO BE. AND, UH, UH, SO WITH THAT, UM, UH, WE WILL, UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS ON THE, ON THE MAIN, UH, PROPOSED ORDER, UH, COMMISSIONER ROSE LUGO. TWO QUICK QUESTIONS. SO, FINN, UM, COMM FINN, I APOLOGIZE. UM, WOULD YOU AFFIRM THAT THE COMPLIANCE DATE THAT THE CITY HAD SET FOR OCTOBER 7TH IS THE CORRECT DATE FOR PENALTIES TO END? WELL, I WOULD SENSE THAT'S THE DATE THAT I FOUND IT, BUT, UH, AS THE RECORD SHOWS, IT WAS ACTUALLY FINALIZED SEPTEMBER THE 30TH. OKAY. SO THEN I THINK POTENTIALLY SEPTEMBER 30TH IS THE RIGHT, UH, ENDPOINT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT DIVISION? OH, UH, JUST WANTED TO MENTION, YEAH, ON SEPTEMBER 30TH IS WHAT WE GO BY FINAL INSPECTION, CLOSE THAT PERMIT IS, IS FINALIZED. OKAY. SO WE WOULD GO WITH THAT DATE. SO WE'LL CUT OFF THAT LAST WEEK OF PENALTIES. I WOULD SAY THAT WAS MY FIRST POINT. I THINK MY SECOND POINT IS, I THINK I'M [03:00:01] REMEMBERING VERY VIVIDLY A CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, WHO I THINK WE OCCASIONALLY DISAGREE WITH. BUT I THINK I REMEMBER THE, I REMEMBER THIS VERY MOMENT, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONING HOW THERE WAS SO LITTLE MOVEMENT IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS AND WE REALLY NEEDED TO INCENTIVIZE THE BUILDER AND THE, THE FOLKS WHO OWN THIS PROPERTY TO ACTUALLY FIX THE THINGS. AND I DO THINK IN THE END, YOUR PLAN WORKED QUITE, UH, EFFICIENTLY BECAUSE WE CAN CLEARLY SEE THAT AT THE FIRM. FEBRUARY WAS A REAL CLEAR DEMARCATION POINT. UM, I UNDERSTAND AND EMPATHIZE THAT $600,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY, BUT I THINK THERE'S A, A, TO ME AT LEAST, A CLEAR RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY AND THE WELLBEING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE RESIDENT, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM, AND I DON'T THINK THAT A NORMAL LEVEL FIND IS, IS APPROPRIATE HERE. UM, BECAUSE IT, IT IS, I MEAN, IT'S, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE, THE SITUATION, THE, THE STAGNANCY, THE LACK OF ACTION, UH, THAT SOMEHOW AN ENTIRE, THEY COULD HAVE JUST, YOU KNOW, FORGOTTEN THAT AN ORDER, UH, WAS HAPPENING AND THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO CHECK IN ON WITH FOLKS ON THAT ONE. UM, I'M DEEPLY CONCERNED AT THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD NOT, UH, WE WOULD, UH, NOT, UH, PENALIZE AND DISINCENTIVIZE THAT KIND OF BEHAVIOR BECAUSE OF THE DANGER THAT IT WOULD POSE TO FOLKS IN THE CITY AND TO EVEN JUST, YOU KNOW, FOLKS LIVING IN THIS PROPERTY FROM HERE ON OUT. SO, I UNDERSTAND THAT MAYBE SOME FOLKS WILL FEEL DIFFERENTLY, BUT I WOULD SAY JUST SORT OF THE CONVERSATION, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THE CHARACTERIZATION THAT THE, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE FINES BETWEEN BUILDING ONE AND TWO AND THREE OR FOUR ARE NOT ARBITRARY. THEY'RE REFLECTIVE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN LEVEL OF DANGER THAT THE TENANTS AND THE NEIGHBOR WAS IN BETWEEN IN OCTOBER WHEN IT SEEMED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS BEING PROACTIVE TO IN FEBRUARY WHEN IT SEEMED THAT THEY WERE COMPLETELY MISSING AN ACTION. AND THIS ISN'T THE KIND OF SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN JUST HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER JUST FORGET TO REPAIR SOMETHING THAT'S IN A CRITICAL CONDITION. SO COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU. UM, WE ARE AT THE PORTION OF THE, OF THE MEETING WHERE, UH, WE, UH, WE DIDN'T, WE DON'T LIKE TO HAVE LIKE, JUST BRIEF DISCUSSION WITHOUT MOTION. WERE YOU ? OH, THEN I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S, UH, PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, UH, BUT DEDUCT THE, I'LL PULL UP THE EXACT AMOUNT. OKAY. UH, DEDUCT, I THINK IT'S LIKE FOUR. HOLD ON. I DEDUCT $14,000 FROM THE TOTAL FEES AND PENALTIES, UH, RESULTING IN A NEW TOTAL OF $680,049 AND 16 CENTS. UH, IF THE COMBINED, UH, TOTAL CIVIL PENALTIES AMOUNT TO, UH, SO ON AND SO FORTH, YOU KNOW, ALLOW 30 DAYS FROM DAY TO BE MODIFIED ON 31ST DAY. IF THE, UH, AMOUNT HAS NOT BEEN PAID, IT WILL RESET BACK TO THE TOTAL, UH, ORIGINAL AMOUNT. OKAY. UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. UH, PARDON ME, BUT CAN I JUST TROUBLE YOU TO RE TO REPEAT THE FINAL FIGURE AGAIN? SO IT WAS, UH, THE BEGINNING, THE STARTING POINT IS 680,000. OH, YES. I APOLOGIZE. YEAH. THE STARTING POINT IS $680,000 AND, AND 16 CENTS. YOU WANNA TAKE IT DOWN TO, AND YOU HAVE TO, AND REMOVE, UH, WHAT IS IT, THE AMOUNT AGAIN? $14,000? YEAH, I BELIEVE YOU SAID 14, BUT I, I DUNNO IF IT WAS 14 AND CHANGE OR, UH, LET'S JUST SAY, LET'S JUST, UH, LET'S JUST SET IT TO A CLEAN 600, UH, UH, $666,000 AND 49, UH, AND $49 666. UH, THOUSAND, $49 AND 16 CENTS. YES. OKAY. UH, SO IS THERE A SECOND? WE'RE GONNA HAVE LONG, NOT , HEARING NONE. SO, UH, I BELIEVE THAT, UH, AND COUNSEL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE WHEN WE HAVE A MOTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN SECONDED, UH, THAT WE DON'T PROCEED TO DISCUSS IT, IT FAILS. YEAH. IT'S, IT FAILS OF, OKAY. VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, I'LL MOVE TO REDUCE THE PENALTY TO $60,000 AND, UH, ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER AS IS OTHERWISE, BUT REDUCE IT TO $60,000 WITH THE 31ST DAY, UH, FULL PENALTY, 60 OR 60, 60,000. OKAY. UM, DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY. SO MEMBERS, YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL MOVES TO ADOPT STAFF'S, UH, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH THE FOLLOWING MODIFICATION THAT, UH, THE PENALTIES BE REDUCED FROM A [03:05:01] COMBINED TOTAL OF 680,000, $49 AND 16 CENTS TO A COMBINED TOTAL OF $60,000. AND, UH, 0 CENTS, UH, WITH, I GATHER NO SORT OF ITEMIZATION ACROSS THE VARIOUS, UH, PENALTY AMOUNTS. UH, IS THERE, UH, AND THAT'S SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A COUPLE THINGS ABOUT IT. UM, SO FIRSTLY, I, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT WE SHOULD, UM, GO FOR VARYINGS SUBSTANTIAL PENALTY RELIEF, UM, ESSENTIALLY NOMINAL PENALTY RELIEF THAT ONLY RECOGNIZES THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT WEEK. AND THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE ULTIMATELY OUR BUSINESS IS THIS COMMISSION IS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE. AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE HERE IN THIS CASE. AND I DO COMMEND THE WORK, HONESTLY, BECAUSE TRULY THIS PROPERTY, UM, HORRIFIED ME WHEN I FIRST SAW IT. AND, UM, I'M VERY GLAD TO SEE THAT IT IS, UH, BEEN IMPROVED SO MUCH AND HAS BEEN REPAIRED. UM, THAT IS NICE TO SEE. AND I THINK THAT IT SPEAKS TO THE, YOU KNOW, FUNCTION OF THIS COMMISSION. THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE KIND OF INCENTIVE THAT'S POSED BY A PROSPECTIVE FINE THAT'S GETTING, YOU KNOW, TALLIED UP FOR EVERY MOMENT THAT THEY'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE VERSUS THESE KIND OF RETROSPECTIVE PENALTY HEARINGS. AND I DO JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT, UM, THE INCENTIVE EFFECTS, WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THIS, LIKE WHAT THE ACTUAL EFFECT ON BUSINESSES THINKING ABOUT HOW TO DO THEIR BUSINESS IN REGARDS TO VOTING CODES. UM, IT, IT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T JUST BE PUNITIVE, UM, PER SE, BUT WE WANT TO SERIOUSLY HOLD PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE AND WE WANNA, UM, MAKE SURE THAT BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET FIXED. BACK IN THAT, UM, OCTOBER MEETING, AND I REMEMBER THIS, UM, MS. NEIL'S PLAN SOUNDED PRETTY REASONABLE, AND I THINK THAT WE, WE WERE ALL SOMEWHAT SWAYED BY IT. AND I THINK THAT DURING THAT FEBRUARY MEETING, IT WASN'T ARBITRARY THAT WE DECIDED TO GO WITH A MUCH LARGER PENALTY AMOUNT. IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO THE FEELING THAT WE HAD MADE AN ORDER, WE WERE INTENTIONALLY LENIENT AND SOME OF YOUR OWN EVIDENCE. UM, WAS ME TALKING ABOUT THAT AND BEING HONESTLY VERY, I I, I WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH Y'ALL AT THE TIME AND, UM, I THINK THAT WE HAD A VERY DIFFERENT OPINION COME FEBRUARY WHEN WE SAW VERY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE ON THE MANAGEMENT AND DIDN'T NECESSARILY SEE THAT KIND OF RESPONSIVENESS. SO, UM, YOU SAID THAT THAT FEBRUARY MEETING KIND OF, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, LIT A FLAME WITH Y'ALL. AND I DO THINK THAT THAT WAS COMMISSIONER FRANCIS', UH, INTENTION. AND SO I'M GLAD THAT THAT WORKED. UM, THAT BEING SAID, I DO THINK THAT THE, UH, THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY ISN'T NECESSARILY WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE IN RETROSPECT. NOT NECESSARILY THAT IT WAS THE WRONG MOVE AT THE TIME IT SERVED. ITS INCENTIVE FUNCTION, BUT JUST THAT IN RETROSPECT, IT DOES PERHAPS SEEM LIKE PENALTY REDUCTION IS REASONABLE, BUT ALSO WE WEREN'T NECESSARILY WRONG TO IMPOSE THIS, HAVE PENALTIES AT THE TIME. SO I DON'T THINK THAT JUST REDUCING IT DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, CITY'S COSTS AS WE'VE DONE, AS WE DID ESSENTIALLY EARLIER TONIGHT. MAKES SENSE. SO 60,000, I THINK IS A, A REASONABLE NUMBER. IT WOULD BE MORE THAN THE, UH, 12,000 TIMES FOUR, ALTHOUGH TWO OF THE PENALTY AMOUNTS ARE BELOW 12,000. SO IF WE ITEMIZE IT, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT IT WOULD STILL PROVIDE A PENALTY TO THEM BEYOND THE CITY'S COSTS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY GO SO FAR BEYOND THAT, THAT I WOULD THINK THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE FROM WHERE I'M SITTING. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR. UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, ANYTHING TO ADD AS THE SECOND ON THIS ONE? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY. NO. UH, COMMISSIONER KALA, UM, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL, DEFINITELY SPEAK TO YOUR POINT. I THINK I DO AGREE THAT SOME REDUCTION BECAUSE COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IS A GOOD IDEA. UH, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT IN CONSIDERING THE INCENTIVES THAT WE WANT TO PUT OUT AT THIS BOARD, UM, I THINK ONE POTENTIALLY PERVERSE INCENTIVE THAT COULD COME FROM A A SUCH A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION COULD BE THAT, UH, OWNERS FEEL NO DUTY TO INSPECT THEIR OWN PROPERTIES AND JUST KIND OF EXPECT THE CITY TO DO THAT FOR THEM. UM, ANOTHER ISSUE IS NOT JUST THAT THEY DIDN'T SHOW UP IN FEBRUARY, IS THAT BY FEBRUARY THE ISSUES IN ALL THESE BUILDINGS HAD NOT BEEN RESOLVED, AND WE ARE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO NEED TO BE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE, UH, THE MANAGEMENT OF THESE PROPERTIES. AND SO I DO AGREE A A FEW REDUCTION, BUT I MIGHT, YOU KNOW, I'M A, I'M NEW HERE, THIS IS MY FIRST MEETING, BUT I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST I'VE MAYBE GOING UP A LITTLE BIT FROM THAT TO INDICATE THAT, UH, WE ARE NOT THE [03:10:01] ONES WHO NEED TO BE PUTTING, ALTHOUGH WE, IT IS OUR JOB, WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES PUTTING LANDLORDS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANIES ON NOTICE. LIKE THEY SHOULD ALSO BE PATROLLING THEIR PROPERTIES AND LOOKING FOR THESE ISSUES THEMSELVES. UM, SO I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I, I GENERALLY AGREE WITH YOU HOW THE INCENTIVES, AND WE'VE GOTTEN COMPLIANCE HERE, BUT I'D ALSO SAY MAYBE A LITTLE BIT EXTRA TO SHOW THAT, UM, MISSING NOTICE IS NOT AN EXCUSE, MISSING NOTICE OF A BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HEARING IS NOT AN EXCUSE FOR AN UNSAFE PROPERTY. MM-HMM. IF I CAN SUGGEST YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT, UM, YOU, YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO IF YOU'D LIKE, THEN I WOULD, UH, MOVE TO, MAYBE AMEND TO, I THINK YOURS WAS A, ABOUT A 90% REDUCTION IN THE OVERALL FINE. AND NOT TO, YOU KNOW, NO MATH WHIZ, BUT MAYBE WE COULD GO TO A 75% REDUCTION OR A 70% REDUCTION, WHICH WOULD ENDED UP AROUND MAYBE AROUND A HUNDRED K OR A LITTLE UNDER THAT. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. A LITTLE MORE. UM, BUT IF, IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER YEAH. IN, IN LIGHT OF THE HOUR, I THINK PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT, IF YOU, IF YOU HAVE MISGIVINGS ABOUT THE FIGURE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND IT, AS THE AUTHOR OF THE AMENDMENT, I THINK YOU COULD JUST, YOU CAN PROPOSE A NUMBER IF YOU WANNA THROW OUT A HUNDRED, IF YOU KNOW, UH, THEN I THINK, UH, I THINK A HUNDRED'S, ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT UNDER 75% REDUCTION. SO LET'S DO, UH, OKAY. YEAH. THEN LET'S DO, YEAH, I THINK A HUNDRED THOUSAND SEEMS FAIR. OKAY. SO WE HAVE, UH, UH, AN PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY COMMISSIONER TEVI. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE, TO THE AUTHOR? UH, YES. OKAY. SO MY, MY UNDERSTANDING OF ONE MOMENT, UH, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY I READ ROBERT'S RULES IS THAT A PROPOSED AMENDMENT HAS TO BE SEPARATELY VOTED ON, UM, AND TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE, THE BODY IS ACCEPTABLE WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE, THE, THE MAIN MOTION. AND SO THAT HAS TO KIND OF STAND AND FALL ON ITS OWN. AND THEN IF IT FAILS, WE GO BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION. AND IF IT'S ADOPTED, THEN WE GO BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED. SO WHAT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND DO NOW IS I'M GONNA PUT, UH, THE QUESTION OCCURS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TEVI, UH, TO, UH, CHANGE, UH, FROM 60,000 TO A HUNDRED THOUSAND, WHICH IF ADOPTED WOULD RESULT IN A MOTION TO, UH, ACCEPT STAFF'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDED ORDER, EXCEPT WITH, UH, A COMBINED TOTAL, UH, OF A HUNDRED THOUSAND IN ACCRUED PENALTIES. AND, UH, WITH THAT, I'M GONNA PUT THE QUESTION TO THE BODY. I'M GONNA START WITH COMMISSIONER VID. AYE. ONE, ONE MOMENT. I'M GONNA CON I'M GONNA CONCLUDE THE VOTE AND I'LL COME BACK IF THAT'S OKAY. ? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. IN, NO, IN NO OTHER RESPECT, WOULD THE, WOULD THE RECOMMENDED ORDER BE MODIFIED? SO THE, THE, THE TIMEFRAME WOULD STILL BE THE SAME? NO, JUST GIVEN THE AMOUNT THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED. INSTEAD OF 30 DAYS, IF Y'ALL WOULD CONSIDER 60 DAYS, UM, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OTHERWISE, IF, IF WE DON'T COME UP WITH THE MONEY IN THAT 30 DAY PERIOD, IT GOES BACK UP TO THE HUGE ONE. OKAY. BECAUSE WE HAVE A, UM, THE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PENDING, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE ON THAT AND WE WILL REVISIT THAT. BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT INPUT. SO, UM, UH, SO MEMBERS, UH, BACK TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION. AS A REMINDER, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD, UH, AMEND, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL'S MOTION, UH, TO SUBSTITUTE 100,000 FOR 60,000. WITH THE RESULT BEING THAT THE MAIN MOTION WOULD HAVE AN ACCRUED PENALTY OF 100,000. AND I'M GONNA TAKE IT FROM THE TOP. COMMISSIONER VIC. AYE. COMMISSIONER LOCKHART? AYE. COMMISSIONER OLUGO TO THE MOTION? AYE. TO, TO THE, TO THE AMENDMENT? YEAH. UM, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS? NO, NO. COMMISSIONER, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL AYE. OKAY. UH, CHAIR VOTES. AYE. THERE BEING FIVE AYES IN ONE NAY. THE, UH, AMENDMENT FAILS OF ADOPTION. WE ARE NOW BACK ON THE MAIN MOTION. UH, THE MOTION OF VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS WITH A $60,000 FIGURE. UH, WE HEARD FROM, UH, MS. PENA AND MR. CONDE THAT THERE IS INTEREST IN EXTENDING THE TIMEFRAME. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT INTEREST IS STILL AS IMPORTANT IN LIGHT OF THE FAILURE OF THE AMENDMENT. UM, BUT I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON MODIFICATIONS TO THE TIMEFRAME IF ANYBODY'S INTERESTED IN MAKING THAT MOTION. UH, SORRY FOR CLARIFICATION. I AM UNDER THE IMPRESSION MY MOTION FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDER IS STILL ON THE TABLE. SO, AM I CORRECT THAT THE MOTION THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE IS AN AMENDMENT? THAT THAT IS CORRECT? YES. OKAY. SO YOUR MOTION IS PENDING. I DON'T WANNA USE THE PHRASE TABLE . YEAH, YOUR MOTION IS PENDING BEFORE THE BODY. UH, BUT I AM, UH, IN LIGHT OF THE INPUT WE RECEIVED FROM JAMES, I'M OPENING UP TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEBODY MAY WISH TO OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THAT I'LL MOVE TO AMEND, UH, UH, VICE [03:15:01] CHAIR CAMBELLS, UH, MOTION TO CHANGE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TIME ALLOWED FROM 30 DAYS TO 60 DAYS. AND ON THE 61ST DAY FROM THE DATE FROM THE MODIFIED ORDER IS MAILED, THEN THE REDUCED PENALTY AMOUNT WOULD GO UP BACK TO THE ORIGINAL TOTAL. OKAY. MEMBERS, UH, SO YOU'VE HEARD, UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BY, UH, COMMISSIONER OLUGO. UH, I BELIEVE SINCE WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON THAT, THAT ACTUALLY DOES NOT NEED TO BE SECONDED. UM, SO I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND, AND PUT THAT QUESTION TO THE BODY. SO, TO RESTATE IT, UH, THE QUESTION OCCURS ON THE, THE MOTION OF COMMISSIONER SLUGO TO AMEND THE, UH, MOTION OF VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL CURRENTLY PENDING THE MAIN MOTION, UH, TO, UH, WITH THE RESULT BEING THAT IT WOULD CHANGE THE 30 DAY COMPLIANCE PERIOD IN PARAGRAPH TWO OF THE RECOMMENDED ORDER TO, TO 60 DAYS FROM 30. AND IN PARAGRAPH THREE FROM THE 31ST DAY TO THE 61ST DAY. AND, UH, I WILL, UH, MAKE IT A ROLL CALL VOTE AND BEGIN WITH COMMISSIONER TAM. I'M SORRY, CHAIR. I DIDN'T, I, MAYBE I DISMISSED IT. UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, DID YOU ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? UM, WE DID NOT DISCUSS THIS, BUT YES, I DO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SO COMMISSIONER TOVI. AYE. COMMISSIONER LOCKHART? AYE, UH, COMMISSIONER OLUGO? AYE. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS? AYE. COMMISSIONER, UH, UH, PARDON ME. VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL. AYE, UH, OKAY. SO CHAIR VOTES, AYE. THERE BEING SIX AYES, NO NAYS. THE, UH, AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED. WE'RE BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED. UH, SO TO RESTATE IT, WE WOULD ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW, AND RECOMMENDED ORDER, EXCEPT THAT IN PARAGRAPH ONE, WE WOULD MODIFY THE COMBINED TOTAL FROM $680,049 AND 16 CENTS TO $60,000. WE WOULD, IN PARAGRAPHS TWO AND THREE RESPECTIVELY CHANGE THE COMPLIANCE PERIOD FROM 30 DAYS TO 30 TO 60 DAYS, UH, WITH THE CONSEQUENCES ON THE, THE 61ST AS OPPOSED TO THE 31ST. MM-HMM . CHAIR, IF I MAY, WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME IF I CAN. I SEE THAT AND I DO IF I CAN MOVE TO EXTEND BY FIVE MINUTES TO 10 20. OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT, I BELIEVE THAT'S A PRIVILEGED MOTION ABOVE THE MAIN MOTION JUST BECAUSE OF THE URGENCY. UH, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY, SO WE'VE EXTENDED TO 10 20. 10 20. OKAY. SO, UM, I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER FRANCIS HAS CALLED THE QUESTION, IS THAT RIGHT? DID I HEAR YOU SAY VOTE? I I, NO KIDDING. . WELL, COMMISSIONER ROSA LUGO, I DO NOT WANT TO RUIN EVERYONE'S NIGHT. I, I, I AM STRUGGLING TO SEE MYSELF VOTING YES ON THIS MOTION. AND SO I WOULD LIKE SOMEONE TO CONVINCE ME SO I DO NOT RUIN YOUR EVENINGS. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER OLUGO, UH, YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN AND I, I I, I SHARE SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS. UM, YOU KNOW, SO, SO, YOU KNOW, FOR THE NEWER MEMBERS HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA HAPPEN A LOT. UM, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR A LOT OF, UM, FEE REDUCTIONS AND, UM, AND THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, HAS A SAMPLING OF, YOU KNOW, THE THINGS YOU'RE ALWAYS GONNA HEAR. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA HEAR, WE DIDN'T GET THE NOTICE. UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE, UM, THE, THE AMOUNTS ARE UNREASONABLE. UM, YOU KNOW, WE WERE JAMMED UP IN PERMITTING. I MEAN, I'M, I'M NOT IMPUTING ALL OF THIS TO, TO THE, TO THE OWNER IN THIS CASE. UM, YOU KNOW, SO FOR THOSE WHOSE, YOU KNOW, CAREERS OR PROFESSIONAL LIVES DON'T INVOLVE DEEP MEDITATIONS ON NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPTS THAT A LOT OF THOUGHT HAS GONE INTO. AND SO, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS TO MS. RA EARLIER, YOU KNOW, CONCERNED WHETHER THE NOTICES IN THIS CASE WERE IN COMPLIANCE, BECAUSE I THINK THE STATUTE IS PRETTY THOROUGH. YOU CAN DO IT BY PERSONAL DELIVERY. SOMEBODY HAS TO WALK UP TO YOU AND HAND YOU THE PAPERS. YOU CAN DO IT BY CERTIFIED MAIL. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE US POST OFFICE, YOU KNOW, SAYING THAT IT GOT TO THEM, YOU KNOW, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED SOMEBODY SIGNED OFF FOR IT, YOU KNOW? AND, AND, AND HERE WE'VE DONE MORE THAN ONE. YOU KNOW, WE, WE, YOU KNOW, WE SENT IT TO 'EM. WE GOT SIGNATURES ON, YOU KNOW, RETURN RECEIPTS. UM, WE GOT PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE PLASTIC, YOU KNOW, WHERE IT'S BEEN STAPLED TO THE, TO THE BUILDING. AND, UM, AND WE'RE ALL DOING THE, WE'RE DOING THIS TO THE ADDRESS THAT IS SHOWN AS THE PROPERTY OF RECORD IN THE, THE COUNTY TAX ROLLS. YOU KNOW, SO WHEN FOLKS COME IN AND, AND START TALKING ABOUT NOTICE, WELL, THAT, THAT'S VERY SERIOUS IF IT'S TRUE. BUT I, I JUST, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE DISTRACTED BY IT. YOU KNOW? UM, ANOTHER THING IS NOT, IS NOT TO FORGET THAT THIS, THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS ON THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM BEFORE. UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T BEGIN WHEN WE WALK IN AND FIND THE VIOLATIONS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THE EXPECTATION IS THAT, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS IN THIS CITY ARE EXPECTED TO KEEP THE PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST TO SORT OF FIX IT ONCE IT FALLS OUTTA COMPLIANCE. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHILE I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA NOT TO JUST HAVE THIS EXCESSIVELY PUNITIVE, UM, PENALTY JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE FAILED TO SHOW UP TO ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, [03:20:02] YOU KNOW, I, I, I THINK WHATEVER WE DO SHOULD HAVE SOME TEETH. AND SO I DO HAVE MISGIVINGS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE REDUCTION THAT WE'VE ARRIVED AT HERE, WHICH I THINK AS COMMISSIONER TEVI POINTS OUT, IS, YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVELY 9 CENTS ON THE, YOU KNOW, 90 CENTS ON THE DOLLAR. UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, SO JUST TO FOLLOW UP THAT, YOU KNOW, MY, MY APPROACH IS ALWAYS A DATA-DRIVEN ONE, AND THIS IS A HIGH COMPLEXITY CASE. SO THAT SETS THAT NUMBER. SO YOU'RE CLOSE, UH, COMMISSIONER CAMPBELL IN YOUR ASSESSMENT OF WHERE THAT RATE SHOULD BE. I ALSO THINK WE'VE SPENT ADDITIONAL MEETINGS AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN. AND SO THERE'S, ON TOP OF THOSE COSTS, THERE'S OUR COSTS OF DOING THIS AS WELL. SO I THINK WHILE THE OTHER FEE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE LARGE, THE CONCESSION IS, IN MY MIND, ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT'S CLOSE TO THE DATA-DRIVEN NUMBER. IT TAKES INTO CONCESSION IN THE CONSIDERATION, THE REDUNDANCY OF US HAVING TO DO THIS. I DON'T CARE THAT THEY, THEY GOT THE NOTICE, RIGHT? SO THAT'S NOT A RELEVANT, BUT THAT ADDS SOME ADDITIONAL COSTS TO THAT NUMBER THAT KINDA ROUNDS IT OUT IN A THOUGHT PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO PULLING A NUMBER FROM WHEREVER, RIGHT? IT, IT, AND WE'VE HAD THAT PROBLEM IN THE PAST THAT THERE ARE NUMBERS SEEM TO BE SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY IN MY MIND ANYWAY, AS A NON ATTORNEY, THAT JUST SEEMS TO BE NOT VERY CONSISTENT IN HOW WE APPROACH THAT. SO THIS OTHER APPROACH SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT DRIVEN AND HAS SOME BASIS FOR IT. WHILE IT IS A LARGE REDUCTION, IT DOESN'T, IT FOLLOWS TRUE WITH SOME OF OUR OTHER DECISIONS OF A HIGH COMPLEXITY CASE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? UH, COMMISSIONER OLUGO THAT, UM, BUT I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHERE CHAIR, I'M, I'M SORRY, WE'RE APPROACHING TWO MINUTES AND WE STILL HAVE ONE MORE CASE. I UNDERSTAND. UM, TERRY, YOU MAY HAVE TO CALL, BUT I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY WE HAVE DONE GIVEN LESS OF A REDUCTION TO FAR MORE SYMPATHETIC CASES. THIS IS A CASE THAT TO ME IS SHOWN A RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR SAFETY WITH SOME VERY CONCERNING, UH, OPERATIONAL, UM, ISSUES FOR A REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM. SO A 90% REDUCTION, I THINK IS, I CAN, I CAN EMPATHIZE WITH, WITH WANTING TO BE MORE GENEROUS A HUNDRED PERCENT, BUT I THINK A 90% REDUCTION IS REALLY TOUGH. I'VE YET TO BE CONVINCED WITH WHAT FOLKS HAVE SAID THAT, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. OKAY. SO BEFORE WE GO TO VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL, UM, I'M GONNA GO AHEAD AND IT'S UNUSUAL, BUT NOT, UN NOT AGAINST OUR RULES FOR THE CHAIR TO MOVE. I'LL MOVE TO PUT 10 MORE MINUTES ON TO TAKE US TO 10 30. UH, DO DO I HEAR ANY, WELL, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. ANY OBJECTION? OKAY, HEARING NONE. UH, SO WE'RE HERE TILL 10 30, UH, VICE CHAIR TO CLOSE, HOPEFULLY . OKAY. LOOK, IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DISAGREEMENT HERE BETWEEN TWO NUMBERS THAT WE'VE ARRIVED AT 60,000, A HUNDRED THOUSAND, THE $60,000 NUMBER IS WHAT I PUT OUT IN PART BASED ON THE CITY'S COSTS WITH A LITTLE BIT EXTRA IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE, UH, THINGS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. Y'ALL HAVE BROUGHT UP VERY GOOD POINTS THAT, UM, THERE'S OTHER CONCERNS. WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT THE INCENTIVES HERE. UM, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE SEEMS TO BE A SLIGHT DIVISION IN TERMS OF HOW WE ACTUALLY SEE THE FUNCTIONING OF THESE ORDERS AND HOW WE SEE THE FUNCTIONING OF THE PENALTY RELIEF. AND THAT'S FINE. WE'RE BRINGING BOTH OF THOSE VALUES INTO THIS DISCUSSION. BUT WE DO STILL NEED TO ARRIVE AT A ACTUAL NUMBER. AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THE DIVISION IS BETWEEN COMMISSIONER OLUGO AND COMMISSIONER FRANCIS AS TO WHAT THE NUMBER WOULD BE, THEN THE ONLY REAL SOLUTION, SINCE WE DO WANT TO SEEMINGLY PROVIDE SOME PENALTY RELIEF, BUT NOT FULL, IS CUT THE NUMBER. YOU KNOW, 80,000 SEEMS REASONABLE. I UNDERSTAND. FOR $660,000. THAT IS, THAT IS UNDERSTANDABLE, . BUT I, I, I, I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, I MEAN, TO, TO BE CLEAR, LOUISE, IF IF WE REDUCE THE PENALTY DOWN TO 600,000, THEY'RE NOT GONNA MAKE THAT NUMBER. RIGHT? WE DO NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF THE PRACTICAL REALITIES HERE, I THINK, AND ALSO OF THE REALITIES OF, EXCUSE ME, THIS CHAMBER 10 20 OH, EXTENDED. WE, WE ADDED, WE ADDED, OH, YOU EXTENDED AGAIN, I'M SORRY, . THANK YOU, THOUGH. UM, SO I WOULD JUST SUGGEST IN, IN LIGHT OF THIS, THAT WHILE THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENCE OF VALUES, WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING DISCUSSED HERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF NUMBERS JUST AS MUCH. SO I, I, I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CAN DISCUSS IT IN A WAY THAT LEADS US TO A SPECIFIC CONCLUSION, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. OKAY. UH, THANK, UM, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE FOCUSED ON THE NUMBERS. THANK YOU MADAM VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART, SINCE WE'RE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS AS WELL, PERHAPS A NUMBER CLOSER TO 90,000 WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO EVERYONE BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING MORE TIME. IT'S CLOSER TO THE HIGHER NUMBER INITIALLY SUGGESTED. SO, SO [03:25:02] CAN I GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT POTENTIALLY YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YEAH. YOU'RE WELCOME TO MAKE THE MOTION, UM, I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT. TO CHANGE THE PENALTY AMOUNT, IT WOULD NEED TO BE AN AMENDMENT. YEAH. WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY, YEAH, I DON'T MEAN TO NO, WHAT YOU'RE GONNA PROPOSE IS YOU'RE GONNA MOVE TO AMEND THE MAIN ORDER AS CURRENTLY PENDING. UH, SO, UH, YOU'D BASICALLY BE MOVING TO AMEND FROM 60 TO TO 90. SO, BUT GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. I MOVE TO AMEND STAFFS FINDINGS FROM 60,000 TO 90,000 FOR A PENALTY. OKAY. I, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU MEAN. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE VICE CHAIR? UH, THAT IS ACCEPTABLE. UH, SO I'M GONNA PUT THE QUESTION TO THE BODY. THIS IS ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF COMMISSIONER LOCKHART TO THE MAIN MOTION, THE, THE PENDING MOTION AS CURRENTLY AMENDED. SO, AS A REMINDER, THE MOTION AS AMENDED THAT IS PENDING BEFORE US, IS TO ADOPT STAFF SPENDINGS BACK CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH A MODIFICATION TO $60,000 IN, IN PARAGRAPH ONE. UH, 30, 30 DAYS BECOMES 60 DAYS IN PARAGRAPH TWO, AND THE 31ST DAY BECOMES A 61ST DAY IN PARAGRAPH THREE. AND THE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF COMMISSIONER LOCKHART WOULD MODIFY, UH, THE $60,000 FIGURE TO 90,000. 90,000. UH, AND IT'LL BE A ROLL CALL VOTE BEGINNING WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER TOVI. AYE, UH, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART. AYE. COMMISSIONER OLUGO. AYE. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. AYE, UH, VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL. AYE. UH, OKAY. SO CHAIR VOTES AYE. AND THE RESULT BEING THAT WE'RE, THAT NOW BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION AS NOW TWICE AMENDED, UH, WOULD ADOPT STAFF'S FINDING BACK CONCLUSION OF LAW RECOMMENDED ORDER, EXCEPT THAT THE TOTAL PENALTY WOULD BE $90,000, UH, IN 60 DAYS WITH CONSEQUENCES ON THE 61ST. AND, UH, I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR COUNSEL BEFORE I, UM, PUT THE QUESTION TO THE BODY. AND THAT IS, IF THIS FAILS OF ADOPTION, IS THERE ANY, LIKE AT SOME POINT WE DON'T HAVE TO JUST CONTINUE MAKING MOTIONS, WE COULD SAY THAT WE FAILED, THAT WE JUST FAILED TO REACH AGREEMENT ON MODIFYING THE PENALTY, RIGHT? IS THAT, DO YOU, DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S, WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER BUSINESS IF THIS FAILS, OR DO WE HAVE TO JUST KEEP TRYING ? WELL, SO THE, THE PROPOSAL RIGHT, IS YOU HAVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER MM-HMM . WHICH IS TO UPHOLD THE PENALTIES. UM, BUT YOU ARE ALSO ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT. IF YOU CAN REACH AN AGREEMENT TO MODIFY THAT, THEN YOU CAN REDUCE IT FURTHER. SURE. SO REALLY, IF, IF YOU ALL CANNOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT TO FURTHER REDUCE THE, THE PENALTIES, THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF DETERMINATION ON, AS TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO GRANT PENALTY, ADDITIONAL PENALTY IF YOU'RE GOING TO GRANT PENALTY RELIEF OR NOT. SO ULTIMATELY IT WOULD, IT WOULD STILL FALL TO THE PENALTIES WOULD BE ULTIMATELY UPHELD. RIGHT? SO THERE HAS TO BE SOME, THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF DETERMINATION. OKAY. AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS JUST FROM A PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE STANDPOINT. SO WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, CODE INVESTIGATOR PRESLEY WAITING TO DO ITEM NUMBER SIX, AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S GETTING LATE AND, UM, EVERYBODY WANTS TO GO HOME. AND I GUESS THE IDEA IS IF WE WERE TO HAVE A SPLIT WHEREIN HALF OF US WANT TO GRANT PENALTY RELIEF, THE OTHER HALF DON'T, WE CANNOT REACH AN AGREEMENT, UH, THAT, UH, AT, AT SOME POINT, IS IT WITHIN MY DISCRETION AS THE CHAIR TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE MOVING ON TO OTHER BUSINESS. UM, AND THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT THE STATUS QUO WOULD PERSIST THE 600? CORRECT. SO WOULD WOULD CONTINUE, BUT, BUT WE WOULDN'T TAKE ANY ACTION TO AFFECT THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? WE WOULD JUST, I WOULD JUST MOVE ON E ESSENTIALLY THE MATTER, THE MATTER WOULD WOULD, I GUESS FAIL FOR LACK OF RIGHT. FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD. OKAY. UM, BECAUSE THE, THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU WAS IF YOU WERE GOING TO GRANT PENALTY RELIEF OR NOT. RIGHT? RIGHT. OKAY. AND SO WE DON'T, SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T NEED TO AGREE TONIGHT THAT WE'RE NOT DOING IT. JUST IF WE FAIL TO AGREE, THEN IN FACT WE'RE NOT DOING IT EVEN IF WE HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW, HAD A, HAD A VOTE TO THAT EFFECT. RIGHT. IN ESSENCE, THE STATUS QUO WOULD REMAIN IN PLACE. RIGHT. OKAY. I JUST WANT, OKAY, SO, SO LET'S, LET'S SEE HOW IT DOES. UH, SO, UM, THE MO THE PENDING MOTION AS AMENDED AND MEMBERS, YOU'VE HEARD THE MOTION, UH, ADOPT STAFF FINDING FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECOMMENDED ORDER, EXCEPT THAT THE TOTAL PENALTY WOULD BE $90,000 60 DAYS, 61ST DAY. AND, UH, I'M GONNA PUT THIS TO THE BODY. UH, COMMISSIONER, UH, VIC AYE. COMMISSIONER LOCKHART? AYE. COMMISSIONER OLUGO. AYE. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. AYE. COMMISSIONER, UH, SORRY. THE VICE CHAIR CAMPBELL AYE. CHAIR VOTES. AYE. AND, UM, [03:30:01] THE MOTION PASSES. UM, SO, UH, MS. PENA, DO YOU UNDERSTAND, UH, EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED? OKAY. SO THE, THE ORDER WILL BE MAILED, I BELIEVE WE DO, WE DO MAIL AN ORDER IN THIS CASE EVEN WHEN IT'S, YES. OKAY. AND, UH, YEAH, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, JUST, UH, PLEASE, UH, KEEP IN TOUCH WITH, UM, UH, INSPECTOR FINN AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. UM, AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. APPRECIATE IT. THANK Y'ALL. I APPRECIATE IT. AND SO, Y'ALL KNOW WE'RE WORKING TO GET OFF THIS REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM, HAD THE CONVERSATION AND WE'RE WORKING. WE HOPE TO GET THERE SOON. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. SO, UH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON, UH, NOT A MOMENT TOO SOON TO, UH, UH, ITEM NUMBER SIX, UH, LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA CHAIR. CHAIR. WE HERE, IN THAT CASE WE'RE CALLING ON IT. GONNA MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. SORRY. IT'S THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. SO, UH, LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT THE TIME IS 10:27 PM AND, UM, THE, UH, UH, BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. OH, FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. SORRY. I'M SORRY. FUTURE AGENDA. SORRY. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS] VERY, VERY GOOD. SO ON THE NEXT AGENDA WE'LL HEAR 79 13 LEE HILL DRIVE. OKAY. AND IS THAT GOOD? YEP. WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE THAT ONE. AND THEN, UM, THE OTHER COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE WAS YOUR COMMISSIONS ALL EXPIRE ON THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY. THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T REAPPLIED, SO PLEA, AND I GUESS CHAIR SOAD WILL BE LEAVING US AFTER IN FEW MONTHS. UM, BUT WE HAVE, UH, ANYWAY, EVERYONE ELSE NEEDS TO REAPPLY FOR THEIR COMMISSIONS. WAIT, DID, DID, UH, CHAIR, DID THE CHAIR EXPIRE, LIKE DID GET TERMED OUT? HE GETS TERMED OUT THIS SPRING SO HE CAN CONTINUE IN A HOLDOVER POSITION UNTIL SOMEONE'S APPOINTED PROBABLY. AND THEN THAT WOULD BE FOR 60 DAYS. SO IF SOMEONE'S APPOINTED WITHIN 60 DAYS, HE WOULD CONTINUE THROUGH THAT TIME, I GUESS THROUGH THE END OF APRIL. AND IF NOT, HE WOULD, HIS TIME WOULD TURN OUT. HE CAN GO, HE CAN BE ON ANOTHER COMMISSION OR ANOTHER BOARD. THAT'S THE COOLEST ONE. I'M SORRY. THANKS MELANIE. THANK YOU. BUT ANYWAY, WE'LL MISS HIM. BUT THAT HE'S STILL HERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE LONGER. AND I WANTED TO SAY, JUST CALL YOUR, UH, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND REAPPLY. IF YOU WANT TO STAY ON THE COMMISSION, PLEASE BE SURE TO DO THAT BEFORE THE 28TH. COMMISSIONER FRANCIS. YEAH. LET ME TO MY COLLEAGUES, COMMISSIONERS. I'VE GONE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL TWICE NOW TO STATE THE FACT THAT WE ARE IN THIS POSITION. WE ARE BECAUSE OF A LACK OF ACTION THAT VERY, IT'S A VOLUNTEER DISTRESSES ME DEEPLY THAT WE GET JAMMED INTO THESE POSITIONS FOR A LACK OF, OF ACTION ON THEIR PART. PLEASE CALL YOUR, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER AND LET THEM KNOW THAT THEY, OUT OF RESPECT TO THIS COMMITTEE AND THESE VOLUNTEERS THAT WE ARE, SHOULD BE, IF WE HAD FULL QUORN, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. WE COULD WORK THROUGH 'EM, BUT IT PUTS US AT A DISADVANTAGE. THAT IS NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT FAIR TO US. IT'S NOT FAIR TO THIS IT CITIZENS. IT'S NOT FAIR TO STAFF. THAT'S GOTTA STOP. IT'S RIDICULOUS. HOW LONG, HOW, HOW, WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THEM TO TAKE ACTION? YEAH, YOU'RE BUSY. WELL, WE WANT, WE WANT 'EM TO DO THE CITY'S BUSINESS. THIS IS RIDICULOUS TO KEEP PUTTING US IN THIS POSITION. I'M FED UP WITH IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER. WE'VE GOTTEN VERY GOOD AT MERIT. UH, SIX ZERO, UH, MAJORITY CHAIR. CAN YOU CALL TIME? SO WE'RE, WE ARE, UH, SO LET THE RECORD REFLECT VERY ACCURATELY THAT IT IS 10:30 PM AND WITH THAT, THE, UH, BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION STANDS ADJOURNED. ALRIGHT, LONG ONE. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.