Jun 25, 2025 Building and Standards Commission

WE HAVE SEVERAL, UH, PERSONS, AT LEAST ONE PERSON ONLINE WHO IS, UH, SIGNED UP FOR A PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

AFTER THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CITY HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE.

AFTER THE COMMISSION MEMBERS ASK QUESTIONS, I WILL ALLOW OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENT TO OFFER RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CASE.

BOTH SIDES IN THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.

I WILL GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER SLASH REPRESENTATIVE OR APPELLANT THREE MINUTES.

TO SUMMARIZE IN MY DISCUSSION, THE CITY MAY BE COMMITTED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL AFTER THE SUMMATION.

AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IS CONCLUDED, THE 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 YOU.

A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION IS FINAL AND BINDING UNLESS APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AS PROVIDED IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROCEDURE, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, WITNESSES FOR TONIGHT'S PROCEEDINGS TESTIFY UNDER OATH.

ANY PERSON THAT WANTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IN ANY CASE, INCLUDING THOSE VOTING IN, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU MAY BE SWORN IN.

DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO.

I DO.

IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, WE WILL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT.

UM, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO START WITH, I BELIEVE

[PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL]

AND I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE THAT ARE HERE IN PERSON.

FANTASTIC.

IN THAT CASE, WE WILL START WITH THOSE PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS.

UH, SHOULD I CALL THEM UP BASED ON THE OKAY.

WE'LL START WITH, UH, JASON LINDEN SCHMIDT, IF YOU COME UP AND SIT UP THERE.

ALRIGHT.

LIVED THERE WITH MY FAMILY SINCE 2003.

AND GO AHEAD AND BEGIN WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

UM, HI, MY NAME IS JASON LINE SCHMIDT AND I LIVE AT 52 0 8 VALLEY OAK DRIVE.

I'VE

[00:05:01]

I ALSO LIVE DOWN THE STREET FROM THE HOUSE I'M ADDRESSING THIS EVENING, WHICH IS 51 0 3 VALLEY OAK DRIVE.

THIS HOME WAS PURCHASED IN 2021.

WORK STARTED IN 22 TO RENOVATE THE HOME AND ADD ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AFTER GUTTING.

MOST OF THE HOME WORK STOPPED IN LATE 22 AND NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE SINCE.

IT'S CURRENTLY DOWN TO THE STUDS.

HALF OF THE HOME HAS A ROOF, THE OTHER HALF DOES NOT.

THERE'S CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS ALL OVER THE LOT.

NUMEROUS PEOPLE ON THE STREET, INCLUDING MYSELF, HAVE ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT THE OWNER TO ASK WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO WITH THE HOME, WITH NO RESPONSE.

I PERSONALLY HAVE TRIED REACHING OUT NO LESS THAN 10 TIMES.

THE HOME IS OWNED BY A REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT GROUP CALLED CUSTOM 8 0 1 LLC OUT OF SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA.

THE HOME HAS NUMEROUS CITY CODE VIOLATIONS, INCLUDING ACCUMULATION OF GARBAGE, UNSAFE STRUCTURE, DEFACE OF PROPERTY, GRAFFITI BUILDING, UH, BEING UNSECURED, EXPIRED PERMITS, AND MANY, MANY MORE.

I ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK UP THE HOME AND SEE JUST HOW MANY VIOLATIONS THIS HOME HAS.

SINCE THE HOME HAS BEEN ABANDONED IN 22, WE'VE HAD HOMELESS PEOPLE TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE HOME WITH DOCUMENTATION OF DRUG USE AND THEFT.

AS NUMEROUS AMAZON PACKAGES WERE FOUND WITHIN THE HOME.

THE HOME HAS PLAYED HOST TO A LARGE A HUNDRED PERSON HIGH SCHOOL, UH, PARTY.

LARGE ENOUGH THAT REQ THAT IT REQUIRED THE POLICE TO COME BREAK IT UP.

THE PROPERTY IS CONSISTENTLY OVERGROWN, UNKEMPT, AND UNSAFE.

THE CITY HAS COME UP MULTIPLE TIMES TO BOARD UP THE STRUCTURE, ONLY TO HAVE IT FORCED INTO TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

THE MOST RECENT HOMELESS PERSON THAT TOOK UP RESIDENCE HAS A CRIMINAL RECORD, INCLUDING CHARGES OF ASSAULT AND BATTERY.

AFTER NUMEROUS 3 1 1 CALLS, HE WAS ARRESTED ON MAY 9TH, ONLY TO BE RELEASED ON MAY 10TH AND RETURNED TO THE HOME.

I'M HERE TONIGHT SPEAKING FOR MANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS ON VALLEY OAK, ASKING FOR THE CITY TO EXPEDITE THE DEMOLITION OF THIS HOME.

THE CURRENT STRUCTURE IS NOT SALVAGEABLE, IT'S NOT SAFE, AND IT'S NOT USABLE TO BUILD OFF FROM, AS IT'S BEEN IN THE OPEN ELEMENTS FOR OVER THREE YEARS AND IT'S BASICALLY FALLING APART.

DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD ALLEVIATE THE HOMELESS SITUATION.

REMOVE AN EYESORE ON OUR STREET, ALLOW THE RESIDENTS SURROUNDING THE HOME, INCLUDING A LARGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN TO FEEL SAFE AND HOPEFULLY EXPEDITE THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY FOR ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY.

I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS IN MY LIST UP HERE IN PERSON, BUT I BELIEVE WE ALSO HAVE SOME ONLINE IF WE COULD GET THEM UP.

AND, UH, IF THEY CAN HEAR ME AT THIS TIME, IF YOU PRESS STORE SIX, I BELIEVE TO UNMUTE AND YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

HELLO.

HI.

WE CAN HEAR YOU.

UH, FEEL FREE TO BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

HI, MY NAME IS MOLLY BARKSDALE AND I ACTUALLY LIVE NEXT TO JASON.

UM, I LIVE AT, UH, 52 10 VALLEY OAK, AND SO WE'RE KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, SO WE KIND OF GET TO SEE EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING ON THE STREET.

AND EVERYTHING THAT JASON HAS SAID ARE OUR CONCERN SINCE MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED HERE 15 YEARS AGO.

THIS STREET HAS BECOME MORE OF A FAMILY ORIENTED NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO SEEING THIS ABANDONED STRUCTURE AT THE END OF THE STREET THAT, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T EVEN BLAME SQUATTERS FOR TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A STRUCTURE.

UM, BUT SEEING THAT HAPPEN AND SEEING THE TRAFFIC OF, UM, PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T BE ON THE STREET BE THERE IS VERY CONCERNING, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE KIDS ON THE STREET.

THE, THE THEFT IS DEFINITELY A CONCERN.

UM, AND THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS A CONCERN.

UH, JASON, ME, OH, I'M SORRY.

UH, JASON MENTIONED THE PARTY THAT WAS HELD THERE.

THANK GOD IT DID NOT END UP BEING A, A PROBLEM, BUT IT COULD HAVE.

UM, AND I JUST, YOU KNOW, I DON'T NEED A WHOLE THREE MINUTES TO JUST SAY THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO PETITION THIS GROUP TO REALLY CONSIDER, UM, ACCELERATING THE DEMOLITION OF THIS STRUCTURE SO THAT IT CAN'T BE USED FOR THESE PURPOSES.

IS THAT FOR A LATER CASE? I BELIEVE THAT'S FOR A LATER CASE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY.

UM, I SEE LINE WE MAY HAVE ONE MORE PUBLIC SPEAKER.

IS THAT CORRECT OR

[00:10:01]

ALRIGHT.

IN THAT CASE,

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE APRIL 23RD MEETING? SO ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF, UH, THE MINUTES FROM THE APRIL REGULAR MEETING.

UH, YOU NEED NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENT AT THAT MEETING TO VOTE, UH, IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

UM, IT IS IN YOUR READER.

SO PLEASE REVIEW.

AND I BELIEVE WE NEED TO NEED A MOTION ON THAT AND, UH, TO RECORD A VOTE, MOVE, MOVE TO APPROVE SECOND.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT IS A MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECONDED.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, WE WILL JUST DO, UH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED, HEARING NONE.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, UH, PASSES.

WITH THAT, I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO OUR NEW CASES FOR THE EVENING.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

I, I, UM, WAS GONNA ASK IF YOU DON'T MIND TAKING CASES OUT OF ORDER FROM THE AGENDA.

UH, YES, WE CAN.

UM, WHAT CHANGE WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE? UM, ARE THERE ANY CASES THAT ARE UNREPRESENTED? OH, UM, LET ME LOOK THROUGH MY SPEAKER'S LIST TO CHECK THROUGH.

I BELIEVE THAT AGENDA ITEMS NUMBER THREE, SIX, AND NINE ARE UNREPRESENTED.

I HAVE ONE OF REPRESENTATIVE ONLINE FOR ITEM NUMBER THREE.

OH, IN THAT CASE, UH, THAT SHOULD JUST MEAN ITEMS SIX AND NINE ARE UNREPRESENTED.

OH, IN THAT CASE, ITEM NUMBER SIX IN THAT CASE, SHOULD WE TAKE THAT ONE? MAY I SUGGEST WE MOVE THAT ONE TO THE END? YES.

IN THAT CASE, LET'S MOVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX TO THE END AND THEN

[ 2. Case Number: CL 2025-036211 ]

UM, I'M SORRY, I'M JUST, I'M NOT SURE IF ITEM TWO IS UH, REPRESENTED.

OH, I BELIEVE I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE, BUT I DO SEE THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF NEIGHBORS, UH, WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE.

OH, PERFECT.

AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS.

ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 25 0 3 6 2 1 1 AND IS REGARDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 1 2 DUNLAP STREET.

THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GOLD BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.

THIS CASE IS REGARDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

THE CASE WAS OPENED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT.

THERE ARE NO ACTIVE TRADE PERMITS FOR THE CURRENT DEFICIENCIES.

THE NOTED VIOLATIONS CREATED PUBLIC NUISANCE AND IS, AND THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD, SUBSTANDARD, AND WITH DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS.

IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU WILL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY.

A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING, PROOFS OF MAILING

[00:15:01]

AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH 2K.

UM, CODE INSPECTOR EDMUND SUE IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.

INSPECTOR SUE, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

GOOD EVENINGS, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS EDMUND SUE AND I'M AN INSPECTOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT'S CO COMPLIANCE DIVISIONS.

THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT, UH, BEFORE YOU TODAY IS, UH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 2 1 2 DUNLAP STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS, 7 8 7 0 4.

THE OWNER OF THE RECORDS HAS BEEN IDENTIFY AS RENA, HECTOR G ON SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2023.

INITIAL INSPECTION, UH, INITIAL INSPECTOR RECEIVE A, A COMPLAINT FOR THE PROPERTY VIA 3 1 1.

UH, REGARDING PEOPLE LIVING IN THE TRAILER, RV SHED BEHIND THE HOUSE, UH, BUILDING IS UNSAFE OR DANGER IN DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.

STRUCTURE WITH, UH, INSECT INFESTATIONS, PLUMBING ISSUES, UH, AND POTENTIAL STRUCTURE DETERIORATIONS ISSUES ON SITE.

ON THE SAME DAY, UH, SEPTEMBER 25TH, 2023, INSPECTOR OBSERVED ROOF RIDGE DETERIORATED WITH THE SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS AND PART OF THE ROOF WAS COVERED WITH THE BLUE TARP OVER EXPOSED HOLES, UH, TO PREVENT ADDITION WATER LEAKAGE.

UH, OVER THE, THE ROOF AREA, INSPECTOR OBSERVED SEVERAL EXPOSED HOLES AROUND THE FOUNDATION WALLS AND THE BASE OF THE STAIRWAY, WHICH COULD ALSO BE THE HOSTING GROUND FOR RODENTS AND INSECT INFESTATIONS.

I GRASP VIOLATION ALONG WITH THE, UH, UH, WHAT'S ON THE PROPERTIES ALONG WITH TRASH.

UM, AND INSPECTOR DID NOT OBSERVE ANYBODY LIVING IN THE BACKYARD, UH, IN THE RV.

UM, ON SITE.

THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 26TH, 2023.

OCTOBER 15TH, 2024, ANOTHER INSPECTOR PERFORMED AN INSPECTION ON SITE, OBSERVED THE ROOF WAS STILL IN SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS, AND STILL HAD THE TARP OVER THE PART OF THE ROOF ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE, UH, MOISTURE OUTTA THE PROPERTIES.

THE ROOF HAD ROTTED WOOD WITH MISSING SUPPORT AND WAS CAVE IN AND STARTED TO BE DEFORMED.

THE FOUNDATION AND THE STAIRWAY HAD HOLES AROUND THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE AND CRACKS AROUND THE EXTERIOR WALLS.

ALL THESE DEFICIENCIES WERE VIOLATION OF, UH, INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE CODE, AND THE INSPECTOR DOCUMENTED ON THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

IT WAS RE MAILED TO THE OWNER DETAILING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATION ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2024, AND THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED LATER ON NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024.

ON JANUARY 9, 20, 25, 20 FIFTH, AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION WAS ISSUED FOR THIS STRUCTURAL VIOLATIONS.

THE OWNER DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SHOW UP ON MARCH 27TH, 2020 FIFTH DURING THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.

AS OF JUNE 23RD, 2020 FIFTH, INSPECTOR PERFORMED FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS AND OBSERVE THE STRUCTURAL VIOLATIONS STILL ON SITE, AND THEY WERE NOT CORRECTED.

THE INSPECTOR, UH, DECIDE TO ESCALATE THE CASE FOR BSC PROCESS, AND WE HAVE SOME MORE, UH, PHOTOS DETAILING MORE VIOLATIONS THROUGH.

YES, SO THIS IS, UH, PICTURE TWO A IS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTIES.

UM, AND THEY, THERE'S ALSO TWO VEHICLES.

UH, THEY WERE WITH FLIGHT TIRES, UH, ON, ON THE PROPERTIES.

AND THE NEXT ONE, TWO B.

ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, THERE'S A ROTTED WOOD AND DILAPIDATED ROOF ABOVE THE GARAGE AREA.

AND, UH, PICTURE TWO C UH, IT'S A CLOSE UP FOR ROTTING WOOD AND DILAPIDATED, UH, HOLES BY THE STAIRWAY AND PHOTO D RIGHT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH ROTTED WOOD, DILAPIDATED, UH, ROOF AND MISSING SHINGLES.

TWO E IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE WITH THE EXPOSED HOLES.

AND THEN THERE'S ALSO EXPOSED HOLES BY THE TRASH CAN.

[00:20:03]

TWO F IS, UH, CLOSE UP THE TREE GROWING INTO THE STRUCTURE, AND THEN ALSO WITH ADDITIONAL EXPOSED HOLES ON THE BASE OF THE FOUNDATION, TWO G REAR AND LEFT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, SHOWING DILAPIDATED STRUCTURE WITH THE EXPOSED HOLES.

TWO H CLOSE UP TO THE REAR LEFT SIDE OF STRUCTURES, UH, SHOWING DILAPIDATED ROOFING AND DEFORMED, UH, ROOF REACH.

AND, UH, TWO EYES.

UH, ALSO IS MISSING ROOF RIDGE AND THEN ALSO ADDITIONAL DETERIORATIONS.

AND THEN THIS IS THE, THE PART WHERE THE BLUE TARP IS COVERING THE HOLES ON THE ROOF TO PREVENT THE ADDITIONAL MOISTURE INTO THE PROPERTIES.

AND THIS IS MORE CLOSE OUT PICTURES TO SHOW THE TARP ON THE ROOF AND ALSO DEFORMED, UH, ROOFTOP AT THIS POINT.

YEAH, THAT'S THE LAST ONE.

IN CONCLUSIONS, THERE ARE NO ACTIVE, UH, BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PROPERTIES.

THE OWNER NEVER REACHED BACK TO ANY OF THE INVESTIGATORS.

LEFT BUSINESS CAR ON HIS DOOR ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, BUSINESS CAR WERE LEFT ON THE DOOR, UM, AND THEN WOULD NEVER, UH, RESPONSE.

UM, SINCE MAKING CONTACT LATER ON, THE OWNER HAS BEEN REFERRED TO SCOTT, ME.

UM, THEY HAVE COMPLETE SUBMITTED APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE ROOF PLUMBING REPAIRS ON SITE.

UH, SUPPOSEDLY THERE'S THE APPLICATION BEING SUBMITTED ON MAY 16TH, 2020 FIFTH, BUT AT THIS POINT, THERE'S STILL NO ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT ON SITE.

THIS CONCLUDE MY TESTIMONY 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 SUBSTANDARD AND DANGEROUS, EXCUSE ME, SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS.

STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH 2K.

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.

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 INSPECTION 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 $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.

UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

INSPECTOR SUE.

I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE, UM, WHO ARE NEIGHBORS, I BELIEVE, UM, UH, COLE ALEXANDER AND JULIE ALEXANDER.

UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING UP AND SPEAKING, UM, WHERE IT SAYS PROPERTY OWNER, BUT REALLY THAT'S JUST WHERE WE WOULD BE TAKING, UH, ANY KIND OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION.

UM, AND, UH, WHILE WE WAIT FOR THEM TO GET UP, I WILL GO AHEAD AND ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH 2K, AND IF YOU'LL GO AHEAD AND PRESS THE BUTTON ON THE, UH, SPEAKER, IT'LL TURN RED.

AND THAT'S HOW YOU KNOW IT'S ON WITH THAT, WITH THAT MIC.

THERE'S A, A GREEN LIGHT ON THE BOTTOM.

IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER RANKS.

THAT ONE'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

UM, WELL, YEAH, IF Y'ALL WOULD, UH, UH, LIKE TO BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

I'LL GO FIRST.

I'M COLE ALEXANDER.

I'M THE IMMEDIATE, UH, JASON NEIGHBOR AT TWO 10 DUNLAP STREET.

UM, UH, FIRST, UM, JUST WANNA SAY THAT OFFICER LOPEZ HAS BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH, UH, REALLY APPRECIATE HIS HELP, HELPING, YEAH.

AND, UH, UM, ONE THING THOUGH IS, UH, THE MAIN REASON WE'RE HERE IS A SEWER LEAK.

AND THAT'S, I'M SURPRISED THAT THAT WASN'T

[00:25:01]

KIND OF ON THERE.

AND IF WE COULD BRING UP TWO F REAL FAST, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

UM, WE'VE BEEN TALKING WITH THEM, THE NEIGHBORS, WELL, ABOUT ALL THE STUFF.

WELL, WHAT WE'VE KIND OF LET, LET 'EM BEEN AT SOUTH AUSTIN KIND OF ATTITUDE, LIVE AND LET LIVE.

THEY HAVE HOMELESS PEOPLE CAMPING IN THEIR BACKYARD.

THEY WERE LETTING THEIR ROOF ROT DOWN, BUT THEN WHEN THE SEWER LEAK CAME AROUND, THAT'S WHEN WE HAD TO FINALLY SAY SOMETHING.

SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THEM SINCE FEBRUARY.

AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY SHOWN IN THIS PICTURE WAS THAT ALL THIS DARK AREA IS LIKE A BIG OLD CESSPOOL.

IT'S JUST FILLED THE SEWAGE, RAW SEWAGE FROM THEIR HOUSE.

AND I'VE TALKED TO 'EM AND MY WIFE HAS TALKED TO 'EM AT LEAST A DOZEN TIMES.

YOU GOT ANY UPDATES, YOU NEED ANY HELP, YOU NEED ACCESS FROM OUR YARD TO, TO WORK ON IT.

AND, AND THE GUY LIKE USED TO WORK FOR A PLUMBER TOO, THAT'S, ANYWAY, UM, SO WE'RE HERE ABOUT THE SEWAGE FIRST AND FOREMOST.

IT IS MISERABLE LIVING NEXT DOOR.

WE WEREN'T ABLE TO HAVE OUR WINDOWS OR DOORS OPEN ALL SPRING LONG.

UM, IF WE SIT OUTSIDE, WE, WE HAVE TO LIGHT ALL THESE INCENSE.

THE, THE MASS, THE, THE, IT'S THE, THE WORST SMELL YOU'VE EVER SMELLED.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY WANNA DRESS FIRST AND FOREMOST.

AND THEN IF THEY CAN GET THE PEOPLE THAT ARE CAMPING IN THEIR BACKYARD OUT, THAT WOULD BE NICE.

AND THEN IF THEY FIX THEIR STRUCTURE, THAT WOULD BE NICE TOO.

BUT HE'S NEVER REALLY BEEN A, UH, VERY, UH, ACTIVE, UH, MAINTAINING HIS, HIS PROPERTY.

SO WE'RE KIND OF AT OUR WITS END.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO NEXT.

AND ONE THING I'D LIKE TO ADD IS THAT, SO WE'VE BEEN ON THE, UM, STREET FOR 26 YEARS.

WE'VE BEEN NEIGHBORS WITH THEM FOR 20 YEARS.

UM, WE ARE VERY MINDFUL THAT, UM, THEY DO HAVE A GREAT HISTORY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY ARE REYNA'S, THE SIDE STREET THAT IS NEXT TO THEM IS REYNA.

AND SO WE HAVE, UM, AGAIN, TRIED TO JUST LET THEM BE AND LIVE THEIR LIVES, BUT NOW THAT THIS SEWAGE ISSUE HAS BEEN COMING UP SINCE WE'VE ADDRESSED, SAID SOMETHING TO THEM IN FEBRUARY, AND SO NOT TO HAVE IT RESOLVED, NOT TO SEE THEM DOING ANYTHING TO REMEDY IT OR EVEN CHANGE THEIR HABITS IS JUST, IT'S BEYOND US.

LIKE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

SO WE JUST, WE JUST NEED HELP.

THEY OBVIOUSLY NEED HELP.

AND SO WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

UM, AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE I WILL OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE.

UH, UH, YES, JAMES.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO, UH, MR. MATA IN OUR DEPARTMENT AND, UH, MS. CARRIE DAVIS, WHO'S WORK WORKS IN THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.

AND, UM, MR. RENA ACTUALLY DOES HAVE A APPLICATION IN FOR ASSISTANCE.

UM, I BELIEVE THERE'S A PROGRAM TO, UM, TO INSTALL A, UH, PRIVATE LATERAL, UH, THAT WILL, THAT WOULD BASICALLY TAKE CARE OF THE SEWAGE ISSUE.

AND I THINK HE'S ALSO IN LINE TO MAYBE, UH, GET SOME ASSISTANCE WITH THE HOME REPAIRS AS WELL.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I I I JUST WANTED TO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY IS ACTUALLY TAKING SOME STEPS INTO HELPING HIM REMEDY THE, THAT SITUATION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

UM, AS I WAS SAYING, UH, I THINK AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF EITHER THE CITY OR, UM, THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE, UH, COME HERE TO SPEAK.

UH, PROBABLY PREFERABLY THE NEIGHBORS FIRST, JUST IN LIGHT OF THEIR TIME.

UM, BUT YES, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR QUESTIONS.

UH, COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH.

UM, YEAH, I HAD A, A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I MEAN, THIS, THIS BUILDING LOOKS PRETTY ROUGH.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT JUST SEWAGE AND ROOF STUFF.

I MEAN, THEIR FOUNDATION HAS ISSUES.

I SEE WHAT LOOKS LIKE CAT FOOD TYPE STUFF.

I MEAN, ARE WE, ARE WE CONFIDENT THAT THAT ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY IS GONNA BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY MAKE THESE REPAIRS POSSIBLE AND A LITTLE SKEPTICAL? SO COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT AND WHETHER YOU THINK THE PROGRAM'S GONNA BE SUFFICIENT AND, UH, TIMELY? WELL, I MEAN, HONESTLY, UM, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT, UH, I MEAN, I JUST COULDN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN, BUT AGAIN, IT'S A PROCESS.

HE HAS AN APPLICATION IN.

WE'VE REFERRED HIM TO ONE OF THE COMMUNITY PARTNERS WHO, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON FUNDING, MAY BE ABLE TO, UH, ASSIST HIM WITH, WITH THOSE REPAIRS.

AND AGAIN, THE CITY'S OWN, UH, IT'S A GRANT THAT, UH, WILL INSTALL THAT

[00:30:01]

PRIVATE LATERAL FOR HIM.

I BELIEVE HE QUALIFIES.

I DON'T KNOW WHY HE WOULDN'T ACCEPT THAT.

AND AGAIN, IT'S A GRANT, SO IT'S NOT MONEY HE'D HAVE TO PAY BACK.

BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, NOT SURE IF HE COMPLETED THE APPLICATION, IF IT'S ALL THE, YOU KNOW, I'S, ARE DOTTED AND TS ARE CROSSED AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, SUFFICIENT FOR, FOR THE CITY'S PURPOSES, BUT IT'S IN THE WORKS.

DO YOU THINK THE, THE 46TH DAY, UM, IN THE ORDER IS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THAT PROCESS TO BE COMPLETED? UM, REGARDLESS OF THE TIMEFRAME, IT, IT, UM, SINCE THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, UM, HE'LL HAVE THE CHANCE TO, WE'LL HAVE THE CHANCE TO REVIEW IT IN-HOUSE FOR AN OFFSET.

SO I MEAN, YOU COULD, HE COULD, HE COULD, YOU KNOW, I GUESS TWO 50 A WEEK IS ABOUT 13,000 IN A YEAR.

SO HE COULD, YOU KNOW, THE REPAIRS COULD BE NOT MADE IN A YEAR, AND AS LONG AS HE EXPENDED 13,000 OR AT LEAST THAT MUCH IN FUNDS WERE EXPENDED, WE CAN PROBABLY OFFSET THAT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER.

UM, BEFORE RECOGNIZING A, UH, ANOTHER COMMISSIONER, I WAS GOING TO HOPE TO ASK TO PASS CITY STAFF AND PERHAPS A DIVISION MANAGER MORE TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT, UM, OFFSET PROGRAM, JUST ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS OR, UM, ANYONE ELSE FROM, UH, MS. GARRETT, IF WE'D LIKE TO ELABORATE ON THAT FOR THE NEW COMMISSIONERS.

YES, DEFINITELY.

UH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ELAINE GARRETT.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE SEWAGE WAS LISTED AS A DEFICIENCY, SO WE DO HAVE THAT ON, ON FILE.

UM, THE PROGRAM THAT HE'S DISCUSSING IS A SOCIAL WORKER THAT IS, UH, ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT.

UH, THE SOCIAL WORKER IS AN OUTREACH PROGRAM THAT OUR INSPECTORS ARE ABLE TO, UH, UTILIZE AS A RESOURCE WHEN WE HAVE CASES WHERE THERE MAY BE HARDSHIPS INVOLVED.

SO THAT'S THE INDIVIDUAL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

UM, WHETHER, I MEAN, HE FINDS THE RESOURCES, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT MEETS CERTAIN CRITERIA OR NOT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, IS IT JUST A SPECULATION ON OUR END? IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH RESOURCE IS REQUIRED.

UH, SO IN THAT CASE, WHAT WE DO KNOW THOUGH, IF THE LEAKAGE IS, IS MORE SEVERE, WE WANNA SEE THAT THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED WITHIN A 48 HOUR IF, IF IT'S CAUSING A PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY.

SO WE CAN REVISIT THAT PART OF THAT, THAT SECTION REGARDING THE FOUNDATION WORK.

UM, WE, I DON'T SEE THAT WE REQUIRED AN ENGINEER REPORT, BUT, UM, AGAIN, OUR GUYS ARE NOT THE ENGINEERS, SO THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THE ARCHITECTURAL, UM, DECISION ON THAT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT DIRECTOR.

GARRETT.

MAD CHAIR.

YES, MR. COULD YOU ALSO EXPAND ON THE OFFSETTING COMPONENT, ROBERT, MAYBE? YES, ESPECIALLY FOR OUR NEWER COMMISSIONERS.

UH, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, SO ANY, UH, PENALTIES THAT ARE ACCRUED CAN BE OFFSET FROM THEIR EXPENSES.

SO IF JUST EASY MATH, IF THEY ACCRUE $10,000 IN PENALTIES, BUT THEY SPEND 10,000 FIXING IN THEIR HOUSE, UH, AND BRING IT UP TO COMPLIANCE, THEN WE CAN COMPLETELY OFFSET IT IN-HOUSE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE COMMISSION LIKE THEY WOULD IF IT WAS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

THANK YOU FOR ADDING THAT INFORMATION.

IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE AT THIS TIME, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING, A MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THAT IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.

ANY SECOND? SECOND.

THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT INSPECTORS ON SITE.

HEARING NONE, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

UM, UNLESS THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OF YOU, Y'ALL ARE, UH, FREE TO GO.

UM, AT THIS TIME I'LL OPEN IT UP TO MY PUBLIC COMMISSIONERS, UM, TO DISCUSS.

UH, WE CAN STILL ASK CITY STAFF OR IF THERE WERE OWNER REPRESENTATIVES AT THIS TIME, THE OWNERS.

UM, ANY QUESTIONS, BUT AT THIS TIME, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? WE TEND TO LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BEFORE BEGINNING DISCUSSION.

UM, SO AT THIS TIME, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MADAM CHAIR, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

UH, GO AHEAD.

NO, FOR STAFF, NO CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OWNER ABOUT THIS HEARING THIS EVENING.

IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE READING THROUGH THE MATERIAL.

THERE'S BEEN SOME ONGOING DIALOGUE, BUT ALL WE KNOW IS THAT THERE'S AN APPLICATION, BUT THERE'S BEEN NO CONNECTION ABOUT THIS THIS EVENING.

UM, SO FAR IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO GET AHOLD OF OWNERS, UM, AND INSPECTOR BENDER MULTIPLE TIMES.

AND, UH, LEAVING, UH, DOCUMENTATIONS, UH, UNABLE TO GET AHOLD OF THEM.

UH, WE ACTUALLY HAD TOTAL

[00:35:01]

UM, AND I WAS ACTUALLY ON SITE AS WELL, UH, ON MONDAY, BUT I WAS UNABLE TO REACH TO THE OWNER AS WELL.

UH, AT THIS TIME I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION COMMISSIONER LOCKHART, I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.

THAT IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER.

IS THERE SECOND? SECOND.

COMMISSIONER LOCKHART? AYE.

THAT, UM, THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.

I HEARD.

FIRST, UM, AT THIS TIME, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER? I WILL RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.

FIRST NOTE.

HEARING NONE.

I THINK THAT WE CAN JUST MOVE ON TO A ROLL CALL.

VOTE ON THE MOTION AT HAND.

UM, COMMISSIONER I BARRA AYE.

COMMISSIONER GILKER? AYE.

AYE, UH, THE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

HEARING SEVEN AYES AND NO NAYS, I BELIEVE THE MOTION PASSES, IN WHICH CASE THE ORDER IS ADOPTED WILL BE SENT OUT TO THE OWNER, UM, SOON.

AND SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE? I'D LIKE TO CALL ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU.

UH, YES, WE MAY.

NUMBER SEVEN IN THAT CASE.

LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM

[7. Case Number: CL 2025-057979]

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ON THE AGENDA IS, UM, CASE NUMBER CL 2 2 5 0 2 5 0 5 7 9 79.

AND IS REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3 8 2 4 AVENUE F.

STAFF EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE TEAL BOOK IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.

THIS CASE IS ABOUT A VACANT AND DILAPIDATED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

THE CASE WAS OPENED IN MAY OF 2022 AS A RESULT OF AN ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT.

THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO ACTIVE TRADE PERMITS TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES AT THIS PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY'S DATABASE OF RECORD.

THE STRUCTURE IS ZONED HISTORIC PER HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION.

HISTORIC ZONING CRITERIA.

THE STRUCTURE HAS A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.

THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD AND REQUIRES REPAIR.

IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY.

A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, A STRUCTURE MAP OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED NOTICES OF, UH, VIOLATION, NOTICES OF HEARING AND POSTINGS.

AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO I.

AND LASTLY, THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INVESTIGATOR COURTNEY BRITT, IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.

INVESTIGATOR BRITT, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER.

MY NAME IS COURTNEY BRITT AND I'M A CODE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE.

THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 13, I'M SORRY, 38 24 AVENUE F.

THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS JOHN MAY M MAYFIELD PER THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

NOTE, THIS PROPERTY IS A CITY OF AUSTIN LANDMARK, KNOWN AS THE MANS SPINDALE HOUSE ON MAY 24TH, 2022.

WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FOR THIS PROPERTY VIA 3 0 1 FOR AN ABANDONED HOUSE WITH AN DEFICIENT ROOF AND OVERGROWN VEGETATION.

INVESTIGATOR ALICIA TOVAR CONDUCTED AN INSPECTION ON JUNE 8TH, 2022, DOCUMENTED THE VIOLATIONS AND MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER IDENTIFIED IN THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT THAT SAME DAY.

ON APRIL 4TH, 2023, INVESTIGATOR TOVAR SENT A SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER OF RECORD AS THE OWNER HAD MOVED AND UPDATED HIS MAILING ADDRESS ON TCAD FROM APRIL, 2023 TO OCTOBER, 2024.

CODE INSPECTORS CONDUCTED FOLLOW UP VISITS TO THE PREMISES AND CONFIRMED NO ROOF REPAIRS UNDERTAKEN ON OCTOBER 30TH, 2024.

I ASSUMED THE ROLE AS INVESTIGATOR FOR THIS CASE.

I CONDUCTED INSPECTION, NOTED FIVE STRUCTURAL VIOLATIONS ON THE RESIDENCE, INCLUDING THE ROOF.

I DOCUMENTED THE VIOLATIONS AND MAILED A NEW NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER IDENTIFIED IN THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024.

ON NOVEMBER 8TH, 2024, I SPOKE WITH THE OWNER AND EXPLAINED THE CODE VIOLATION PROCESS IN LEGAL ESCALATION AVENUES AVAILABLE TO DSD.

THE OWNER REPORTED DIFFICULTY IN RETAINING CONTRACTORS IN CENTRAL TEXAS AS AN EXTREME PITCH OF THE ROOF AND THE CEDAR SHAKE SHINGLES ARE NOT TYPICAL IN OUR AREA.

ALSO, HE REPORTED THAT HE WAS EXPLORING ALTERNATIVE ROOFING MATERIAL OPTIONS AS CEDAR IS DIFFICULT TO ENSURE TO INCREASED FIRE, UH, WILDFIRE RISK IN AUSTIN,

[00:40:01]

AND EXPRESSED THAT HE MAY HAVE TO PASS HISTORIC REVIEW TO CHANGE THE MATERIAL.

ON JAN, JANUARY 22ND, 2025, I ISSUED AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITATION FOR THE ROOFING DEFICIENCIES.

WE OBTAINED A LIABLE FINDING AFTER THE HEARING ON MARCH 20TH, 2025.

AS OF MY MOST RECENT INSPECTION ON MAY, UH, I'M SORRY, JUNE 6TH, NO WORK HAD COMMENCED TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES.

I'LL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED.

PHOTO TWO A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO ON THE FRONT, FRONT OF THE PREMISES, AND IN THIS CONTEXTUAL PHOTO, WE CAN SEE THE SUBSTANDARD ROOF PATCHES APPLIED TO THE, UH, LOWER PORTION OF THE ROOF.

NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO B IS, UH, PHOTO OF THE ROOF DEPICTING THE IMPROPER TEMPORARY PATCH MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR OVER SIX YEARS IS A VIOLATION OF IPMC, SECTION 3 0 4 0.7 FOR ROOFS AND DRAINAGE.

NEXT PHOTO PHOTO TWO C IS A ROOF DETAIL PHOTO SHOWING A PENETRATION IN THE ROOF, AS WELL AS IMPROPERLY APPLIED APPLIED PATCH MATERIAL WHERE THE LEADING EDGE OF THE PATCH IS NOT SECURED UNDER THE COURSE OF SHINGLES IMMEDIATELY ABOVE IT, AND THEREFORE NOT PROPERLY DIVERTING WATER.

NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO 2D IS ANOTHER ROOF DETAIL PHOTO SHOWING A SECTION OF ROOF WITH LIFTING AND CURLED SHINGLES.

NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO E IS A DETAILED PHOTO SHOWING THAT THE PATCH IS SEPARATING AND LIFTING FROM THE ROOF ALONG THE BOTTOM EDGE.

PHOTO TWO F SHOWS THE WEATHERED IN UNCOATED, TIMBER, FASCIA AND WOOD, HALF TIMBER WALL MATERIAL.

THIS IS A VIOLATION OF IPMC 3 0 4 0.2 PROTECTIVE TREATMENT.

NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO G SHOWS UNCOATED AND SEVERELY WEATHERED WOOD, WOOD WINDOW FRAMES.

UH, IPMC 3 0 4 0.13, WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES.

NEXT PHOTO, TWO H SHOWS MISSING WOOD SECTIONS OF HALF TIMBER EXTERIOR WALLS WARPED AND SEPARATING FROM THE SECOND STORY WALL ALONG THE BOTTOM.

VERTICAL PIECES OF TIMBER EXTERIOR WALLS, SECTION 3 0 4 0.6.

AND THEN PHOTO TWO I SHOWS THE CARVED STREET NUMBERS ABOVE THE FRONT DOOR, WHICH ARE NON CONTRASTING AND NOT FIRE CODE COMPLIANT.

UH, IPMC 3 0 4 0.3 ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION.

THIS CONCLUDES MY TE TESTIMONY AND 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 AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD.

AND IN NEED OF REPAIR STAFF ASK THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO, WHICH CAN, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS TWO A THROUGH TWO.

I 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.

AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.

UH, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION INVESTIGATOR BRITT.

UH, THIS TIME I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ONLINE WHO IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER AND ALSO ONE, UH, NEIGHBOR WHO WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SPEAK IF THAT NEIGHBOR WOULD, UH, I BELIEVE HER NAME IS LORI WELCH, UH, WOULD MIND COMING UP AND SITTING THERE, BUT WE'LL TAKE THE, UH, OWNER FIRST.

SO, HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? UH, YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU AT THIS TIME.

UM, ONCE YOU'RE READY, UH, FEEL FREE TO BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

ALRIGHT.

I GUESS MY OH, SORRY.

UM, UH, WILL YOU SWORN IN, UM, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WILL YOU SWEAR ME IN THEN? UH, W WILL YOU NOT IN THAT CASE? YES, I CAN.

UM, IF YOU, I WAS SWORN IN AT THE BEGINNING.

I HEARD YOU TO THE BEGINNING.

OH, IF YOU WERE SWORN IN AT THE BEGINNING THEN THAT IS TOTALLY FINE.

UM, AND THAT'S OKAY.

IN THAT CASE, UH, FEEL FREE TO BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

THE OCCUPANT, THERE WAS THE GRANDSON OF PETER BIN.

UM, I BOUGHT THAT HOUSE, WHICH IS THE, THE MANDEL SITE HOUSE IN 2001.

IT WAS BEING CLOSED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

IT, UM, CHINLEY WAS, UM, UM, LIFTING, I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW MANY DEGREES WAS IN STATE, WAS ABOUT TO FALL.

AND THERE WERE HOLES IN THE ROOF OUTSIDE OF NO ELECTRICITY.

[00:45:01]

LITTLE FAMOUS WOOD CARVER LIVED IN THE HOUSE WITH NO ELECTRICITY.

THE ONLY ELECTRICITY WAS THROUGH THE WINDOW AND AN EXTENSION CORD.

I CAN'T EXACTLY REMEMBER HOW HE RIGGED IT UP, BUT HE DID.

I'VE SPENT EXTENSIVE TIME AND MONEY RESTORING THIS HOUSE OVER 20 YEARS.

UM, BUT I HAVE A FEW POINTS TO MAKE.

UM, FIRST THE HOUSE IS NOT UNOCCUPIED.

IT HA I HAVE A CARETAKER, VIRGIL JOHNSON, WHO IS PRESENT ON THE PROPERTY.

SINCE I HAD TO MOVE TO WACO, MY FATHER DIED.

HIS BUSINESS WAS IN HIS BUSINESS, WHICH TURNED OUT HE HAD, UM, DEMENTIA WAS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE.

THREE MONTHS LATER, MY MOTHER WAS DIAGNOSED WITH A, A LARGE MAC BRAIN TUMOR.

AND SO SHE WAS PARALYZED AFTER THAT.

AND THEN MY HEALTH, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I WAS DISCOVERED TO HAVE A BRAIN TUMOR IN 2002.

IT WAS REMOVED IN 2004, AND THEN THIS YEAR, I BROKE MY LEG, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, AND I HAD A TERRIBLE STRESS INFECTION AND WAS IN THE HOSPITAL FOR TWO MONTHS.

THAT DOESN'T REALLY REQUIRE, WHAT I'M REALLY TRYING TO SAY IS I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS HOUSE AND IT WILL BE RESTORED TO A PROPER ORDER.

THERE'S SOME OTHER CORRECTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.

THE WOOD WINDOWS, EVERY PIECE OF WOODEN TRIM ON THE MAIN PART OF THE HOUSE, THERE ARE TWO SECTIONS OF THE HOUSE.

THERE WAS THE FRONT SECTION, AND WHEN I PURCHASED THE HOUSE, THERE WAS A ONE AND A HALF, ONE AND A HALF STORY.

THE GARAGE SECTION WAS BUILT IN THE LATE SEVENTIES, THEN I ADDED AN ADDITIONAL SECOND FLOOR.

THEN THE HOUSE.

AND THE HOUSE HAS, UM, PROBABLY A PROPER PLASTER HOUSE, WHICH HAS BEEN SET OF LONGLY PINE.

ALL OF THEM ARE PAINTED, SO TO SAY.

THEY'RE NOT PAINTED, THEY'RE PAINTED.

I REPAINTED THEM BETWEEN, I CAN, CAN'T ADMIT IT IF I WASN'T READY FOR THAT COMMENT.

BETWEEN ABOUT 2008, SORRY, 2006 AND 2008, I CAN EVEN REMEMBER THE PAINT COLORS.

TUDOR BROWN BY BENJAMIN MOORE.

UM, THE ISSUE RELATIVE TO THE ROOF, I PURCHASED THE HOUSE AND IN 1976 OR NINE, IT WAS, IT WAS, UM, IT, UM, VOTED AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK WITH A COMPOSITION ROOF.

I CHOSE TO UPGRADE THE ROOF TO A WOODEN SHINGLE HOUSE, WHICH UPON INVESTIGATION FROM INSIDE THE ATTIC TO SEE THAT IT REALLY HAD A, ORIGINALLY A WOODEN SHINGLE ROOF.

I REPLACED THE ROOF IN 2022 AND PUT A NEW ROOF ON.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, UM, OVER THE YEARS, THERE'S BEEN SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE BY RACCOON.

AND SO THAT IS CAUSED THE, UM, DAMAGE TO THE ROOF.

UM, LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE? THOSE ADDITIONAL THINGS I NEED TO ADDRESS.

UM, YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE ADDRESS, THERE IS A CARVED, UM, ADDRESS ABOVE THE FRONT DOOR, BUT I WILL ADMIT IT'S DIFFICULT TO READ AND PUTTING UP A A, AN ADDRESS NUMBER OF TYPICAL NATURE IS NO PROBLEM TO DO.

BUT THE PAINTING HAS BEEN DONE.

UM, THE SPEC HAS BEEN REPAIRED.

UM, I CHOSE NOT TO DO THE PAINTING OF THE SPEC ON THE ADDITION, BUT THAT WAS ONLY, THAT'S ONLY, UM, 20 YEARS OLD.

AND THAT WAS THE DECISION I MADE AT THE TIME ABOUT WHICH ONE I WANT TO TAKE AND HOW I WANNA PUT HIS DOOR OUT.

UM, I TORE DOWN THE CHIMNEY, REBUILT THE CHIMNEY.

UM, I SPENT CONSIDERABLE TIME AND MONEY ON THE PROPERTY.

UM, AND YOU HEARD ME SAY THAT POWELL HAS BEEN CONTINUALLY OCCUPIED BY VIRGIL JOHNSON.

HE WAS THE PREVIOUS CUSTODIAN, I THINK, I MEAN, UM, AS, UM, HYDE PARK BAPTIST CHURCH.

AND BECAUSE HE HAD BEEN THERE FOR 35 YEARS, THEY CHOSE TO FIRE HIM BECAUSE HE MAY PAY TOO MUCH MONEY.

UM, HE WAS A VERY HONORABLE GENTLEMAN AND TAKES CARE OF MY HOUSE.

AND THEN FURTHERMORE, UM, I TALKED ABOUT THE RATON DAMAGE.

UM, I CAN TALK ABOUT THEN MY PRESENTATIONS I MADE.

I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE WEEK.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE

[00:50:01]

THOSE PRESENTED? YES.

WOULD YOU LIKE THOSE PRESENTED IN YOUR PACKET? UH, SORRY, I DID NOT QUITE, UM, CATCH THE, UH, QUESTION.

I, I DO BELIEVE THAT'S, UM, TIME ON YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION.

UM, BUT JUST SINCE WE DO HAVE THESE, UM, UH, PROPERTY OWNERS E EXHIBITS, WHICH I, I BELIEVE YOU MIGHT BE REFERRING TO, UM, I, NO, I'M, I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER.

UM, THE, THE, IT INCLUDES, BECAUSE IN YOUR LETTER IT SAYS CLEARLY THAT YOU'RE GONNA ASK FOR AN ALLOWANCE OF 90 DAY POTENTIAL ORDER BASED UPON SUBMISSION OF BID FROM CONTRACTORS AND FIXED BIDS FROM CONTRACTORS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

AND ON A SLIDE.

UM, I HAVE PROOF OF FUNDS TO MAKE THE REPAIR THE TIME, THE APPLIC, THE, UM, BID CAME IN, WERE AT THE END OF MARCH.

OF COURSE, WE ALL KNOW THE STOCK MARKET CRACKED.

ALRIGHT, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

UM, I I, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY, SINCE THE TIME HAS LAPSED, I THINK THE WAY I WANT TO DO THIS IS OFFER TO THE CITY STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, SOME THERE, UH, STATEMENT.

AND THEN AFTER THAT, I, I MIGHT ASK YOU TO, UM, ELABORATE ON SOME OF THESE, UH, DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US JUST FOR, UH, FOR THE CLARIFYING FOR THE COMMISSION, UM, IF THAT'S OKAY.

UM, SO AGAIN, AT THIS TIME, WELL, YOU WERE CLEAR, YOU CLEARLY ASKED ME TO PROVIDE THE FOUR CRITERIA I'VE DONE.

SO, BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO REVIEW THAT, THAT'S ALL.

YES, WE, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT, UM, HERE IN A MOMENT.

BUT JUST IN, IN LIGHT OF THE TIMEKEEPING, I I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, UM, PASS IT BACK TO THE CITY STAFF TO OFFER SUMMATION OR, UH, ANY QUESTIONS THEY WOULD LIKE TO ASK.

UM, IF, UH, INVESTIGATOR BRITT WOULD LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO DEFER TO, UH, KAYLYN CONTRERAS, WHO IS THE, HIS, UH, MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHO IS ON THE LINE.

UH, THANK YOU AT THAT TIME.

AT THIS TIME, WE WILL, UM, GO TO THE OTHER SPEAKERS.

AND, AND THEN AGAIN, SIR, I, I, I DO INTEND TO, UH, LOOP BACKGROUND TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE, UH, DOCUMENTS AND WHAT THEY MAY MEAN.

BUT WE WILL DO THAT WHEN I OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS, UM, FROM THE FELLOW, UH, COMMISSIONERS.

UM, SO AT THIS TIME, WE'D LIKE TO, UH, PASS TO, UH, KAYLYN CONTRERAS, WHO, UH, IS ON THE LINE.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

AND, UM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO INVESTIGATOR, UH, BRITT FOR, UM, BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION AND FOR WORKING WITH US, UM, TO KIND OF UNDERSTAND, UM, THAT THIS IS A REALLY COMPLEX PROPERTY AND A VERY IMPORTANT HISTORIC LANDMARK.

UH, THANK YOU ALSO TO THE OWNER, UM, FOR BEING HERE.

AND, UM, I JUST WANNA SAY QUICKLY THAT, UM, WE ARE, UH, MORE THAN WILLING TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, UM, AND WITH CODE TO HELP THIS PROPERTY COME INTO COMPLIANCE AND TO, UM, YOU KNOW, GET WHATEVER REVIEWS IT NEEDS TO WITHIN THE ALLOTTED TIME PERIODS.

UM, WE, UM, ARE GOING TO, UH, MAKE IT A PRIORITY, UM, JUST TO, UH, TO HELP BOTH THE OWNERS AND OUR CODE OFFICERS, UM, BRING THIS PROPERTY, UH, BACK TO ITS FORMER GLORY.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, HISTORIC REVIEW PROCESS THAT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED, UM, AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE REPAIRS, UM, YOU MAY CONTACT MYSELF, UM, OR ANY OF OUR STAFF AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE.

UM, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY, MS. CONTRERAS.

UM, I ASSUME COMMISSIONERS MAY WANT TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS AS WE CONTINUE.

I BELIEVE WE ALSO HAVE, UM, KIM ON THE LINE.

I DIDN'T QUITE CATCH HER LAST NAME, UH, FROM CITY STAFF.

WAS THAT ALSO CORRECT OR IS, UM, UH, MCKNIGHT, UH, PERHAPS, UH, I JUST GOT THE FIRST NAME.

KIM MCKNIGHT IN THAT CASE, ARE THEY ON THE LINE? THEY'RE NOT.

THEY ARE NOT.

UM, IN THAT CASE, I'D MOVE ON TO THE, I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE NEIGHBOR, LAURIE WELCH.

UM, IF YOU WOULD MIND, UH, STEPPING UP TO THE, UH, DESK RIGHT THERE, AND, UM, I WILL PASS IT TO YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, UH, BEFORE OPENING UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS.

HAVE BEEN ISSUED, THE OWNER HAS DONE NOTHING TO REPAIR IT, TO FIX IT UP.

I'LL BE BRIEF BECAUSE YOUR OFFICER HAS LISTED ALL THE VIOLATIONS AND, UM, I HAVE LIVED IN HYDE PARK FOR OVER 40 YEARS.

I HAVE SEEN THIS HOUSE FALL APART OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

AND DESPITE ALL THE VIOLATIONS THAT

[00:55:01]

THIS HOUSE IS IMPORTANT.

IT IS NOT JUST AN AUSTIN LANDMARK.

IT IS A STATE OF TEXAS LANDMARK AND A NATIONAL REGISTER LANDMARK.

AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF HYDE PARK BECAUSE IT IS HISTORIC AND IT IS A VERY BEAUTIFUL HOUSE, OR USED TO BE ANYWAY.

SO I SIMPLY ASK THAT YOU DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO FORCE THIS OWNER TO FIX UP THIS HOUSE BECAUSE HE HAS DONE NOTHING SO FAR TO DO IT.

THANK YOU FOR OFFERING THAT TESTIMONY.

UM, AT THIS TIME, HAVING HEARD FROM THE, UH, AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY OF ALL OF THE SPEAKERS ON THIS PROPERTY, I BELIEVE I WILL OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF ANY OF THE, UM, OF ANY OF THE WITNESSES INCLUDING, UH, MR. MAYFIELD AND CITY STAFF.

UM, I, I WOULD PERHAPS LIKE TO, UH, START BY JUST ASKING MR. MAYFIELD BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT WHAT YOU WERE PERHAPS HINTING AT WAS THE, UM, PART OF OUR REVIEW PROCESS WHEREBY WE CAN'T GO ABOVE 90 DAYS WITH AN ORDER WITHOUT CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS BEING MET.

AND, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IS MY UNDERSTANDING CORRECT THAT, UM, YOU'RE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION BEYOND THAT FOR, UH, THE ORDER? WELL, UM, UNDER THE SECTION OF THE LETTER I RECEIVED, IF IT IS WHAT YOU CAN DO, AND THE FIRST THING IS IF YOU ADDITIONAL TIME BEYOND THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE OF 90 ESSENTIAL 98 ORDERS BEING SOUGHT, THEN IT LET FOUR THINGS MUST BE PRESENTED.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING WILL BE PRESENTED FROM THE INFORMATION I PROVIDED.

AND I GOT FROM YOUR OFFICE, UM, A VIDEO SUMMARY OF THE WHAT WAS GOING TO BE PRESENTED.

UM, THANK YOU, UH, JAMES, YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS.

UH, JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT, UM, HE, HE DID SUBMIT TWO EXHIBITS.

IT'S, UH, SHOULD BE MARKED IN YOUR READERS ONE AND TWO.

I WOULD JUST ADD, UM, THERE IS DOCUMENTATION IN EXHIBIT TWO FROM LOA ROOFING THAT, UH, THAT THEIR ESTIMATE IS EIGHT TO 12 WORKING DAYS, FIVE TO SEVEN WEEKS FOR INSTALL BASED ON THE MATERIALS.

AND UNDER SEPARATE COVERS, THAT DOES ACTUALLY REMIND ME, UM, I SHOULD JUST FOR, UH, FORMALITY, I KNOW IT IS IMPORTANT.

UM, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO I, AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND ALSO ADMIT THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS EXHIBITS.

UM, IF I COULD ALSO ASK, UM, SONYA HERRERA, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, UM, ELABORATING A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE TO GET AN EXTENSION BEYOND 90 DAYS.

YES, THANK YOU.

VICE CHAIR.

UM, SO UNDER OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE THAT WE HAVE FOR THE BOARD, UM, IT STATES UNDER 5 0 2 IN THE EVENT THAT YOU ALL SHOULD CHOOSE TO GRANT A PROPERTY OWNER, UM, MORE THAN 90 DAYS TO COMPLETE THE, UH, THE REQUIRED WORK.

THE COMMISSION SHALL REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNER OR LIEN HOLDER TO SUBMIT REGULAR PROGRESS REPORTS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH TIME SCHEDULES ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION.

THE COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNER OR LIEN HOLDER, UH, TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSION'S DESIGNEE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH TIME SCHEDULES, UM, ALSO ESTABLISHED BY THE COMMISSION.

IN ADDITION, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER MUST SUBMIT AT THE HEARING A DETAILED PLAN AND TIME SCHEDULE FOR THE WORK AND ESTABLISH AT THE HEARING THAT THE WORK CANNOT BE REASONABLY COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS BECAUSE THE SCOPE AND COMPLEXITY, BECAUSE OF THE SCOPE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE WORK.

UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

UM, IN THAT CASE, UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, UM, OFFER IN, IN, IN THE INTEREST OF HEARING OUT THIS POSSIBILITY, UM, OFFER TO MR. MAYFIELD, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, UM, UH, MAKING YOUR CASE AS TO THOSE TWO PARTICULAR ISSUES.

UM, WHAT YOUR PLAN AND SCHEDULE IS FOR, UM, UH, MAKING REPAIRS TO THE PROPERTY AND WHY IT COULD NOT REASONABLY BE DONE WITHIN THOSE 90 DAYS BASED ON THE SCOPE OF THE

[01:00:01]

PROJECT.

WELL, FIRST, ARE YOU ASKING ME THE QUESTION? UH, YES.

I, I I'M JUST ASKING YOU TO, UM, BASED ON THOSE TWO CRITERIA, IF YOU LOOK AT THE AMENDMENT AT THE, UH, ADDENDUM I PROVIDED, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE JA JANUARY OF 24.

THERE IS A, THE VERY FIRST, UH, NOT THE VERY FIRST, BUT A DETAILED PLAN OF THE ROUTE AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

I GOT BID, THE FIR THE BIDS WERE PROVIDED IN, UM, MARCH THE 19TH OR SOMETHING.

I HAD TO GO THROUGH THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS, WHETHER I WOULD DO THE ORIGINAL COMPOSITION ROOF, WHICH COMES TO $53,000, OR I COULD DO A WOODEN ROOF, WHICH WAS ONE GUY WAS WILLING TO PRESENT THAT AT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

ANOTHER CONTRACTOR, BECAUSE THE COMPANY, THE OTHER CONTRACTOR BIDS WERE NOT INCLUDED WAS, HE WAS UNWILLING TO DO SO BECAUSE OF THE TIMEFRAME OF THE PROPOSED, UM, TARIFFS AND THE EFFECTIVE TARIFFS COMING FROM CANADA RELATIVE TO THE SOLE SOURCE FOR CEDAR SHAPED SINK SHINGLES.

SO THAT WAS ONE ISSUE, AND I BELIEVE THAT THOSE HAVE BEEN SETTLED DOWN OR QUIETED DOWN.

SO I DO HAVE THOSE REPORTS, UM, OF THE COST OF REPAIRS.

AND THEN THERE WAS A THIRD CHOICE TO HAVE A METAL ROOF, WHICH WAS ALMOST A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE EXHIBIT, THEN, UM, I HAD TO, YOU KNOW, WRESTLE WITH THAT IDEA.

AND THEN I DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE METAL, SORRY, THE WOODEN ROUTE, WHICH IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE ORIGINAL, UM, DOCUMENTATION OF THE LANDMARK.

BUT THAT WAS MY PREFERENCE BECAUSE I CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS HOUSE IT SPEND THE MORE MONEY.

SO AGAIN, I'M GONNA CHOOSE TO SPEND THE MORE MONEY.

THEN YOU ASK IN THIS LETTER, WHICH NO ONE WAS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT, I WOULD NOTIFY IN THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT I HAD TO PROVIDE FRUIT OF FUNDS TO MAKE REPAIRS, WHICH I HAVE DONE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THAT FURTHER, ONE OF MY ISSUES RELATIVE TO THE PLAY OF THE MARKET WAS WHETHER TO SELL ASSETS OR TO BORROW THE MONEY BASED UPON ASSETS.

UM, ONE OF, SO THAT'S INPRO SHOULD BE A LOAN APPLICATION THAT TO A BANK, OR AT LEAST THE CON THE, UM, SOME CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT THAT STATEMENTS OF WHAT INTEREST RATES ARE CURRENTLY.

UM, THEY WENT ABOUT MY CURRENT FINANCIAL SITUATION, AND THEN THERE'S AN ESTIMATED TIME TO MAKE THE REPAIRS, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH, UM, I GOT A LETTER THAT SAYS IT SHOULD TAKE EIGHT TO 10, 12 DAYS FOR THE IN INSTALLATION OF THE ROOF.

UNFORTUNATELY, OFTEN, UM, LOOPERS ARE ON A SCHEDULE AND HE ESTIMATED THAT WOULD BE SEVEN TO EIGHT WEEKS.

THAT LETTER WAS NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AND THE CHOICE OF THE, I DON'T KNOW.

SO THAT DIDN'T GET INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

AND THEN I ALSO LISTED SOME OTHER DOCUMENTATION, WHICH WAS THE HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION AND WHETHER SINCE HAVE CHANGED IN, IN, TO SOME DEGREE, BUT IT'S SPENT 20 YEARS, I'VE HAD THE WOOD ROOF.

BUT DO I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ROOF FROM 1970 OR 96? MR. MAYFIELD, IF I CAN INTERJECT, UM, I, I, I DO THINK, BUT I'M HAPPY TO COMPLY WITH ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY AS TO THE PROGRESS OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

THANK YOU FOR THAT OFFER.

THAT'S NO PROBLEM.

I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO INTERJECT AND SAY I, I, I THINK THAT I, I I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO SPEAK TO THOSE ISSUES.

I I THINK THAT YOU'VE, UM, MADE THE CASE TO A SUFFICIENT DEGREE THAT THE, UH, COMMISSION BASED ON YOUR TESTIMONY AND, UH, BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS YOU'VE PROVIDED, CAN, UM, DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF EXTENDING BEYOND 90 DAYS.

NOT THAT, UM, I AM IN A POSITION UNILATERALLY TO DO SO.

UM, BUT, UH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS PROCEDURALLY, UM, MET.

UM, AT THIS TIME, UM, I, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY, BUT, UM, I, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS, UH, EITHER MR. MAYFIELD OR CITY STAFF, UM, AT THIS TIME.

UM, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED AT THIS TIME? UH, COMMISSIONER TOM NANOVI? YEAH,

[01:05:01]

SO, UH, TO YOUR POINT, UH, VICE CHAIR, I THINK THE PROCEDURALLY THE, UM, THE NEED FOR MORE TIME I THINK IS, IS DOCUMENTED HERE IN THE EXHIBITS.

UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

UH, COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH.

UM, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, UM, AND I DON'T SEE ANY, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO.

SO MOVE.

SO MOVED.

UM, THAT IS SO MOVED FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY, I'M STILL LEARNING NAMES.

A LITTLE BIT GROVE COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE, UM, AND SECOND, UM, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.

UM, AND I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.

COMMISSIONER LOCKHART AYE.

HEARING SEVEN AYES AND NO NAYS, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS HEARING IS CLOSED, UM, UH, FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER, MR. MAYFIELD, PLEASE STAY ON THE LINE JUST IN CASE WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.

UM, BUT AT THIS TIME, THE AFFIRMATIVE PORTION OF YOUR TESTIMONY IS OVER.

UM, I WOULD WELCOME FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS A MOTION ON THE MATTER AT HAND.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.

THAT IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, AS IS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.

UM, WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.

I THINK I'M HESITANT ON THE 90 DAYS, 'CAUSE WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO LAY A TIMELINE OUT HERE, AND I, I DON'T HEAR THAT.

WHAT I HEAR IS THIS IS, OR THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE 23, AND YES, ANYBODY CAN RUN COPIES OF ESTIMATES AND THINGS, BUT THERE'S NO ACTION PLAN.

AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, I'M A LITTLE RELUCTANT.

AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THERE'S OFFSETTING, RIGHT? AND CERTAINLY BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE HEARD, THAT WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE CARE OF THOSE ISSUES AND CLEAN THAT UP.

SO THAT'S MY REASON FOR NOT, UH, CHANGING THE TIMELINES.

WOULD ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER AT HAND? HEARING NONE, I WILL MOVE TOWARDS A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER AS IS.

UM, I WILL GO THROUGH A ROLL CALL VOTE.

UM, COMMISSIONER IBARRA AYE.

COMMISSIONER GILKER AYE.

COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE AYE.

AND THE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES AYE, HEARING SEVEN AYES AND NO NAYS, THE MOTION PASSES AND THE ORDER AS RECOMMENDED WILL BE SENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION HERE TODAY, MR. MAYFIELD.

UM, AT THIS TIME, THE UH, ORDER WILL BE SENT TO YOU, BUT UH, THIS CASE IS CONCLUDED AND WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT CASE.

ON THE AGENDA, I'D LIKE TO CALL ITEM NUMBER

[3. Case Number: CL 2025-049075]

THREE.

THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS FOR THIS CASE AND WILL DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS THEY'RE DEPICTED.

LET'S MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER THREE.

ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 2 2 5 0 4 9 0 75 AND IS REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT, UH, 1 2 0 9 EAST 52ND STREET.

STAFF EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GRAY BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE.

THIS CASE IS REGARDING AN UNOCCUPIED COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE.

CASE WAS OPEN IN APRIL OF 2025 AS A RE AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT.

THERE ARE NO ACTIVE TRADE PERMITS RELATED TO THE SIGHTED DEFICIENCIES.

THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE REPAIR.

IN YOUR READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY.

A COPY OF THE CENTRAL OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, THE REQUIRED NOTICES, UH, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS, AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS TWO A THROUGH 2K AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE.

INVESTIGATOR COURTNEY BRITT IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT

[01:10:01]

INVESTIGATOR BRITT, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

FURTHER DISCOURAGING UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY BY PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.

MY NAME IS COURTNEY BRITT AND I'M A CODE INVESTIGATOR FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE.

THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL SIX UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, LOCATED AT 1209 EAST 52ND STREET.

THE OWNERS OF RECORD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS 1209 EAST APARTMENTS, LLC PER THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2025.

WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT VIA 3 0 1 REGARDING ABANDONED MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES, OPEN AND OCCUPIED BY PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS ON 52ND STREET AND CAMERON ROAD.

THIS PROPERTY IS A LARGE GROUP OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITH SIX ADDITIONAL BLIGHTED STRUCTURE, NOT STRUCTURES, NOT SUBJECT TO TODAY'S HEARING, INCLUDING PREVIOUS BSE CASES AT 1211 52ND STREET AND 1202 EAST 51ST STREET, HELD BY THE SAME OWNER AND SCHEDULED REDEVELOPMENT ON APRIL TWO, APRIL 2ND, 2025.

I CON CONDUCTED A THOROUGH INSPECTION, NOTED MULTIPLE STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCIES AND INSTALLED CAUTION TAPE IN A DANGEROUS CONDITIONS PLACARD ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE.

ON APRIL 3RD, 2025, I MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER IDENTIFIED IN TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND REGISTERED AGENT IDENTIFIED IN TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE REGISTRY ON APRIL 4TH, 2025.

I CONDUCTED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION, POSTED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION FROM FEBRUARY, 2025 TO PRESENT CODE COMPLIANCE AND THE OWNER'S AGENTS HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT TO ADDRESS ONGOING ISSUES ON THE PROPERTY.

THE OWNERS ABORTED THE PROPERTY AND EMPLOYED, UH, REMOTE SECURITY ROBOTS TO MONITOR THE AREA.

THE OWNERS WERE ABLE TO REMOVE ELECTRICAL METERS AND POWER FROM THE STRUCTURE SOMETIME BETWEEN APRIL 25, FIFTH AND MAY 13TH.

THE PROPERTY IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AN OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 1207 EAST 52ND STREET ON JUNE 11TH.

I CONDUCT A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND CONFIRM THAT 10 OF THE VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY REMAINED VALID.

I'LL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED.

PHOTOS TWO A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE ON THE PREMISES, WHICH ALSO SHOWS ORDERED WINDOWS AND DOORS TYPICAL THROUGHOUT THE PREMISES.

THIS IS, UH, IPMC, SECTION 3 0 1 0.3, VACANT STRUCTURES AND LAND FOR LIGHTING.

NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO B SHOWS AN EXTERIOR STAIR WITH DAMAGED HANDRAIL AND SUBSTANDARD MAKESHIFT RAMP IS A VIOLATION OF IPMC 3 0 2 0.3, EXTERIOR SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS.

PHOTO TWO C SHOWS A MISSING POST SUPPORTING THE EXTERIOR BEAM, CARRYING THE ROOF TRUS LOAD.

THERE ARE THREE POSTS MISSING FROM THE STRUCTURAL ASSEMBLY.

THIS IS IPMC 3 0 4 0.1 FOR UNSAFE CONDITIONS.

NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO 2D SHOWS THE CRACKED AND ROTTED BEAM CARRYING THE ROOF LOAD.

THIS IS A DETERIORATION OF WOOD SECTION 3 0 1 0.6.

NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO E SHOWS THE DAMAGED FASCIA WITH WITH DAMAGED FASCIA AND SOFFIT.

TYPICAL THROUGHOUT THE STRUCTURE.

THIS IS ROOFS AND DRAINAGE.

3 0 4 0.7.

PHOTO TWO F SHOWS EXPOSED WIRING AT THE HVAC PADS.

THIS IS AN ELECTRICAL HAZARD, 6 0 4 0.3.

PHOTO PHOTO TWO G SHOWS MISSING HVAC CONDENSERS AND LACK OF REQUIRED HEATING AND COOLING FACILITIES FOR THE RESIDENCES.

THIS IS OCCUPATIONAL, UH, RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES.

UH, 6 0 2 0.72.

PHOTO TWO H SHOWS DAMAGED BEAM STYLE CORBELS SUPPORTING THE FASA FASCIA IPMC SECTION 3 0 4 0.8 DECORATIVE FEATURES PHOTO.

OKAY, AND PHOTO TWO I SHOWS DAMAGED AND NON-FUNCTIONING LIGHT FIXTURE, UH, IPMC SECTION 6 0 5 0.3 LUMINAIRES.

NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO J SHOWS, UH, FLY INFESTATION ON ALL THE ACCUMULATIVE, UH, TRASH AND DEBRIS ON THE PROPERTY.

NEXT PHOTO AND 2K SHOWS A WASP INFESTATION TYPICAL THROUGHOUT THE, UH, ENCLOSED WALKWAY AND WINDOW FRAMES OF THE PREMISES.

THIS IS, UH, MULTIPLE OCCUPANCY VIOLATION FOR EXTERMINATION SECTION 3 0 9 0.4.

THE OWNER OBTAINED REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY ALONG WITH 25 ADJOINING PROPERTIES ON AUGUST 29TH, 2024.

TO DATE, THE OWNER HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY PERMANENT APPLICATIONS FOR REPAIR OR DEMOLITION.

THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE PERMISSION ADOPT PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER AND ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.

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 SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE CONDITIONS.

[01:15:01]

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 INSPECTION 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 FOR THAT IMPRESS AND UH, FOR THAT PRESENTATION INVESTIGATOR BRITT, UM, AT THIS TIME I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THE PHONE, UM, OR THE REPRESENTATIVE, UH, MS. HEATHER FINKY WITH DANLEY PROPERTIES.

IS THAT CORRECT? UH, UH YES.

AT THIS TIME, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO ADMIT EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH 2K, UM, AND EXHIBIT ONE.

UM, YES.

AND NOW MOVING ON TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

UH, MS. KY, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE? YES, I'M HERE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

UM, AT THIS TIME I, I'D FIRST OPEN IT TO YOU TO, UM, ASK THE CITY ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AT THIS TIME, UH, BEFORE MOVING ON TO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO SO.

UH, NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

UH, JUST WANNA MAKE, UH, EVERYONE AWARE THAT WE HAVE SIGNED OFF ON A DEMOLITION, UH, PROPOSAL THAT INCLUDES ACTUALLY MULTIPLE PROPERTIES THERE.

UH, WE ARE, I KNOW OFFICER BRA MENTIONED THE 1211 BUILDING, UH, THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN PERMITTING FOR PROBABLY, GOSH, AT LEAST TWO MONTHS.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO GET THE DEMO PERMIT AND ON THIS ONE YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'RE, UH, GOING TO SUBMIT FOR PERMIT FOR THIS PROP, THIS PROPERTY, AND ACTUALLY ALL THE OTHER ONES IN THAT AREA.

'CAUSE I KNOW I'M MENTIONING IT BECAUSE, UM, OFFICER BRIT MENTIONED IT AS WELL.

SO WE ARE MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION.

WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE AS FAST AS THE CITY PERMITTING PROCESS WILL ALLOW.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY.

UH, MS. PENSKY, UM, AT THIS TIME, IF THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY SUMMATION BEFORE I OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS IN THAT CASE, UM, I WOULD OPEN TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FOR ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAVE FOR EITHER CITY STAFF OR TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY THIS IS GONNA BE DEMOED SO YOU WOULD NOT BE ADVERSE TO US, UH, STYLING THIS IN A WAY TO HAVE THE PROPERTY DEMOED INSTEAD OF REPAIRED.

THAT'S CORRECT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.

SO MOVED.

, THAT IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.

ANY SECOND? SECOND.

THAT IS A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BARRA.

UM, AND, UH, AT THIS TIME I WILL TAKE A VOTE.

ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITHIN FOUR ONE, WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.

UM, ALL THOSE OPPOSED HEARING, UH, SEVEN AYES AND NO NAYS.

THE MOTION PASSES THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE CL OF THE, UM, HEARING IS CLOSED.

UM, MS. PENSKY, IF YOU DON'T MIND STAYING ON THE LINE JUST IN CASE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

UM, BUT AT THIS TIME THE AFFIRMATIVE PORTION OF YOUR PRESENTATION IS DONE, I WILL PASS IT ON TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO, UM, MAKE A MOTION.

UM, OR SINCE I MAYBE, UH, WE MAY BE LEANING TOWARDS A DEMOLITION, IF, UH, NOBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT, UH, ORDER, UM, DOES NOT HAVE ANY ALTERNATIVE ORDER IN MIND, I CAN, UM, UH, YES.

UM, IN THAT CASE, I WILL MOVE, UH, TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND

[01:20:01]

B, DEMOLISH ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND, UH, HINDSIGHT ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE, UM, AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND REMOVE AS DEBRIS LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RAKED.

AND C REQUEST INSPECTION FROM 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 TO A AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURES AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF SUCH AND B, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES IN CODE 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, INTRA SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.

IS THERE A SECOND? WE'LL, SECOND.

THAT'S A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.

UM, UM, I WILL OPEN TO DISCUSSION FROM MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, WHAT I'VE DONE IS JUST, UM, ADOPT STOP CO FINDINGS, FACT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER.

AND THE MOTION IS SPECIFICALLY TO DO A DEMOLITION ORDER INSTEAD OF THE REPAIR ORDER THAT IS THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN YOUR, UH, FILES.

UM, WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MOTION? HEARING NONE, I WILL OPEN IT TO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

UM, STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER IBARRA.

COMMISSIONER LACO? AYE.

COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE AYE.

COMMISSIONER GILKER AYE.

AND THE VICE CHAIR VOTES AYE.

HEARING SEVEN AYES AND NO NAYS, THE MOTION PASSES.

SO AGAIN, FOR MS. FUNKY, THAT IS A MOTION TO, UH, DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY IS WHAT WE JUST PASSED.

SO, UM, THAT WILL BE MAILED OUT TO YOU.

CASE NUMBER, UH, MAY I, MAY I SUGGEST MOVING TO CASE NUMBER, UH, ITEM NUMBER FIVE? ITEM NUMBER FIVE IN THAT CASE? YES, WE SHALL MOVE TO THAT ONE.

UM, AT THIS TIME WOULD WE LIKE TO MOVE ON TO

[5. Case Number: CL 2025-058648]

THIS IS A PROPERTY LOCATED RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM, UH, THE PROPERTY WE JUST DISCUSSED.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 2 2 5 0 5 8 6 4 8 AND IS REGARDING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 1 2 2 EAST 51ST STREET.

THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE PURPLE BOOKS IN YOUR READER, READERS OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE.

THIS CASE IS ABOUT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ZONED AS RETAIL, WHICH IS UNOCCUPIED.

CASE WAS OPENED IN APRIL OF 2024 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT OF AN OPEN STRUCTURE.

THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY RELATED TO THE CITED VIOLATIONS.

THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS CONDITIONS AND REQUIRES REPAIR.

IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY, COPY OF THE TRAVEL CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS OF, UH, POLICE OFFENSE, UH, REPORTS.

AND TWO, UH, EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS TWO A THROUGH 2K AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INSPECTOR CHARLES EDWARDS IS CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE.

SUPERVISOR ERICA THOMPSON IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.

SUPERVISOR THOMPSON, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

MADE INITIAL INSPECTION AND OBSERVED PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS ON THE PROPERTY.

MY NAME IS ERICA THOMPSON AND I'VE BEEN A CODE OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR NINE YEARS.

I'M HERE TO DISCUSS THE VACANT STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1122 EAST 51ST STREET, WHICH IS A VACANT 7,200 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

THE OWNER LISTED IN THE TRAVIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS IS 51ST STREET CENTER, LLCA REGISTERED AGENT, JONATHAN SAEED WAS IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE SEC SECRETARY OF STATE WEBSITE AS WELL.

ON APRIL 10TH, 2024, CODE COMPLIANCE RECEIVED A CASE FROM 3 0 1 FOR BROKEN WINDOWS AND GLASS AND GIVING POSSIBLE WAY FOR PEOPLE CRAWLING IN AND MAKING IT A HOME.

ON APRIL 11TH, THE INSPECTOR

[01:25:01]

THE BUILDING WAS PREVIOUSLY BOARDED BY AN UNKNOWN PARTY, HOWEVER, THERE WERE TWO UNLOCKED DOORS AND TWO WINDOWS BROKEN AND UNSECURED.

THE INSPECTOR CALLED THE CITY'S CONTRACTOR AND HAD THE WINDOWS AND DOORS BOARDED AND SECURED.

ON APRIL 18TH, THE INSPECTOR POSTED THE EMERGENCY BOARD AND SECURE NOTICE ON THE PROPERTY.

SEVERAL FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS WERE MADE TO ENSURE PROPER SECUREMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

ON NOVEMBER 26TH, 2024 CODE WAS NOTIFIED THAT A FIRE HAD OCCURRED IN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED AND MOST OF THE INTERIOR WAS BURNED AND DAMAGED BY THE FIRE.

THE ROOF SUSTAINED DAMAGE, THE ELECTRICAL METER WAS REMOVED AND THE HVAC UNIT ON TOP OF THE STRUCTURE WAS DAMAGED AS WELL.

PROPERTY MANAGER MELISSA BEATTY, WAS ON SITE AND HAD A CREW ON STANDBY TO REPORT BOARD AND SECURED THE BUILDING AFTER A FD RELEASED THE SCENE.

ON THAT SAME DAY, THE PROPERTY WAS PROMPTLY REWARDED.

ON NOVEMBER 27TH, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT TO THE OWNER LISTED IN TCAD AND AN ADDITIONAL NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE REGISTERED AGENT.

THE SAME NOTICES WERE POSTED ON SITE ALONG WITH A YELLOW WARNING PLACARD CITING DANGEROUS CONDITIONS ON MAY 29TH, 2025 A FD NOTIFIED CODE THAT THE BUILDING WAS UNSECURED.

AGAIN, A FD REALIZED THIS AFTER BEING CALLED OUT FOR A MEDICAL CALL DUE TO AN INDIVIDUAL ONSITE OVERDOSING INSPECTOR CONTACTED PROPERTY MANAGER MS. BEATTY AND SHE ENSURED THE BUILDING WAS REPORTED ONCE AGAIN ON JUNE 18TH, A WARRANT WAS OBTAINED AND PHOTOS TAKEN OF THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

THE BUILDING REMAINS THE SAME AS ORIGINALLY OBSERVED AFTER THE INTERIOR FIRE.

I'LL NOW TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PHOTOS.

PHOTO TWO A IS A FRONT CONTEXTUAL OF THE BUILDING WITH BOARDED UP DOORS AND WINDOWS AND GRAFFITI.

NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO B IS THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUILDING WITH THE ADDRESS NUMBERS TOWARDS THE CENTER OF THE BUILDING, UM, AND GRAFFITI ALSO BOARDED UP WINDOWS.

NEXT PHOTO TWO C IS THE REAR OF THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUILDING WITH BOARDED WINDOWS AND GRAFFITI.

NEXT PHOTO 2D IS A PHOTO OF THE REAR LEFT OF THE BUILDING WITH BOARDED WINDOWS AND GRAFFITI.

NEXT PHOTO, TWO E REAR OF THE BUILDING WITH BOARDED WINDOWS, DOORS, AND GRAFFITI.

PHOTO TWO F IS THE INTERIOR MAIN ROOM OF THE BUILDING WITH BURNED ELECTRICAL WIRES, HVAC DUCTS, WALLS, AND FLOORS.

PHOTO TWO G IS THE INTERIOR MAIN ROOM FROM ANOTHER ANGLE SHOWING THE SAME.

TWO H IS A CLOSEUP PHOTO OF BURNED HVAC DUCKING THAT FELL TO THE FLOOR DURING THE FIRE.

TWO I IS BURNED STRUCTURAL MEMBERS WALLS AND CEILING.

PHOTO TWO J IS BURNED ELECTRICAL, ELECTRICAL CONDUIT THAT FELL TO THE FLOOR DURING THE FIRE.

AND PHOTO 2K IS A BURN IN MELTED THERMOSTAT AND BURNED WALLS.

UM, DUE TO THE DAMAGES, THAT'S THE ALL THE PICTURES DUE TO THE DAMAGES OF THE FIRE, THE ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.

THIS BUILDING HAS BECOME THE LOITERING OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A THOUSAND FEET OF A SCHOOL.

I WOULD LIKE TO URGE THE BOARD TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH DANGEROUS CONDITIONS.

STAFF ALSO REQUEST 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.

UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION, SUPERVISOR THOMPSON.

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 ITERATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.

AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.

[01:30:01]

AT THIS TIME I WOULD LIKE TO ADMIT, UH, EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH 2K, UM, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE ON THE LINE.

I BELIEVE IT IS ALSO MS. PENSKY.

UM, IF YOU ARE STILL ON THE LINE, CAN YOU SPEAK? YES.

HI.

I AM STILL HERE.

FANTASTIC.

IN THAT CASE, UM, LIKE BEFORE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF THE CITY, YOU ARE MO YOU ARE WELCOME TO.

OTHERWISE, YOU'RE WELCOME TO JUST BEGIN YOUR AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY ON THIS CASE.

UNDERSTOOD.

UH, THIS IS PART OF THE DEMOLITION PROJECT THAT WE ARE, UH, SUBMITTING FOR AND WORKING ON, UH, SAME AS THE OTHER CASE.

SO, UM, THIS WILL BE DEMOLISHED AS SOON AS WE CAN GET A CITY OF AUSTIN PERMIT.

UH, SO WE HAVE ALSO, WE'RE WORKING WITH ATTORNEYS TO TRY TO GET EVERYTHING EXPEDITED AND WITH PERMIT EXPEDITORS AS WELL.

SO IT, IT'S THE SAME ANSWER AS I HAD EARLIER.

THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY MS. PENSKY.

AND, UH, THIS TIME, UM, I WILL OFFER TO CITY IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO, UM, MAKE ANY SUMMATION OF THEIR CASE, UH, BEFORE PASSING IT ON TO MY COMMISSIONERS.

UM, SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN IT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF EITHER PARTY OF THE CITY OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE.

SEEING NONE, UM, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.

I MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC.

THAT'S A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.

ANY SECOND? SECONDED.

THAT'S A COMMISSIONER.

THAT'S A SECOND FROM, I'LL GIVE IT TO COMMISSIONER GILKER.

UM, AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

HEARING SEVEN AYES AND NO NAYS, THE MOTION PASSES.

THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

UM, MS. PENSKY, AGAIN, STAY ON THE LINE JUST WHILE WE DISCUSS THIS.

UM, AND WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT IF, UM, ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ISSUE, OTHERWISE I CAN MAKE ONE.

UM, IN THAT CASE, UH, HEARING NONE, I WOULD MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S 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.

B DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND REMOVE AS DEBRIS LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RAKED AND C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM 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, AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND SUCH, UH, STRUCTURES AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH.

AND B, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES AND COULD 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, INTRA SHALL LARE AT A WEIGHT OF 10% FROM THE, UH, PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? UM, THAT'S A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.

UM, I WILL NOW OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO DISCUSS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

SEEING NONE, I WILL MOVE TO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

UM, STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER IBARRA.

AYE, UH, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART? AYE.

COMMISSIONER GILKER AYE.

I'LL CALL, SORRY, HOW TWO MINUTES? TWO MINUTES.

AND THE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES, AYE.

HEARING SEVEN AYES AND NO NAYS, THE MOTION PASSES.

UM, AGAIN, THAT'S A DEMOLITION ORDER THAT WILL BE SENT OUT SOON.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR, UH, PARTICIPATION TODAY.

AND WITH THAT, I BELIEVE WE WILL BE MOVING TO, DO WE WANNA MOVE TO CASE NUMBER FOUR? UH, MAY I SUGGEST A BRIEF RECESS? UM, SURE WE CAN DO THAT.

TWO MINUTES.

UM,

[01:35:01]

UH, OKAY.

LET'S CALL FOR A TWO MINUTE RECESS.

UH, WE'LL MEET BACK AT EIGHT 19.

THE TIME IS EIGHT 20 AND I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO, UM, MOVE THE ORDER OF CASES AGAIN.

SO I BELIEVE WE WILL BE, UH, ADDRESSING CASE NUMBER NINE NEXT.

UM, IN THAT CASE, WE WILL, UH, WAIT JUST A MOMENT.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER, UH, JOINING REMOTELY.

UM, SO WE WILL, UH, WAIT, PERHAPS JUST A MOMENT FOR THAT.

UH, MELANIE, DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO GO INTO A RECESS FOR THAT OR, OR SHOULD WE JUST YEAH, YEAH.

WOULD YOU RECOMMEND? I WOULD RECOMMEND DOING SO.

TO AT THIS TIME MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

UM, HOW ABOUT WE, IF WE'RE HAVING ISSUES? YEAH, IN THAT CASE, LET'S JUST RECESS UNTIL, I'LL SAY 8 25 JUST TO GIVE, UH, COMMISSIONER SOAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO JOIN.

SO AGAIN, RECESS UNTIL 8 25.

SEEING ALL OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UH, HERE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE, UH, OTHER COMMISSIONER THAT WILL BE JOINING US REMOTELY.

UM, SO I WILL MAKE NOTE OF THAT ONCE THEY DO JOIN JUST FOR, UH, THE RECORD PURPOSES.

UM, THAT BEING SAID, UH, I WOULD LIKE

[4. Case Number: CL 2025-050605 ]

UM, SO IF WE COULD MOVE TO THAT ONE AT THIS TIME.

THE PROPERTY AT 1807 FERGUSON LANE.

THANK YOU CHAIR.

ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 25 0 5 0 6 0 5, AND IS REGARDING AN UNOCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1-807-FERGUSON LANE.

THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE RED ORANGE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE.

THIS CASE WAS OPENED IN NOVEMBER OF 2024 FROM A COMPLAINT REGARDING A FIRE BURN STRUCTURE.

THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY RELATED TO THE CITED VIOLATIONS.

THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRES DEMOLITION IN YOUR READERS.

IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND 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, FIRE INCIDENT REPORTS, AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS TWO A THROUGH TWO I CODE SUPERVISOR ERICA THOMPSON IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS THEY ARE DEPICTED.

SUPERVISOR THOMPSON, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

REPORTS OF FIRE OCCURRING ON THE PROPERTY.

I'M HERE TO DISCUSS THE VACANT STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1807 FERGUSON LANE, WHICH IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

A SEARCH OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORDS REVEALED THE OWNER TO BE LUCILLE JENNINGS WITH THE PO BOX ADDRESS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2024.

CODE COMPLIANCE RECEIVED A CASE FROM 3 1 1 FOR A FIRE BURN STRUCTURE.

ON THE SAME DAY, AN INITIAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED AND EVIDENCE OF A FIRE AND STRUCTURE VIOLATIONS WERE OBSERVED.

A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS MAILED, REGULAR AND CERTIFIED TO THE OWNER IDENTIFIED IN THE TCA D RECORDS.

THE MAIL WAS RETURNED STATING BOX CLOSED, NO FORWARDING ADDRESS ON FILE.

ON MARCH 11TH, 2025, A NEW CODE INSPECTOR WAS ASSIGNED TO THE CASE AND THE INSPECTOR CONDUCTED AN INSPECTION, SENT A NEW NOTICE OF VIOLATION, AND THE MAIL WAS RETURNED, MARKED THE SAME AS PREVIOUS MAIL.

THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS THEN POSTED ON SITE AT THE PROPERTY ON APRIL 15TH, 2025.

ON MAY 1ST, 2025, A YELLOW WARNING PLACARD WAS POSTED ON SITE.

OTHER IMPORTANT DETAILS TO NOTE ARE THAT THERE ARE THREE OTHER

[01:40:01]

ONE REPORTED IN OCTOBER, 2024 RESULTING IN NO EVIDENCE OF FIRE AFTER A FD ARRIVED THE SECOND IN JANUARY OF 2025, RESULTING IN MORE STRUCTURAL DAMAGES AND THE THIRD WAS REPORTED OF A FENCE ON FIRE.

IN THAT INSTANCE, NEIGHBORS REPORTED THAT UNAUTHORIZED PEOPLE LIVING ON SITE WERE USING A BARBECUE PIT TO CLOSE TO THE FENCE AND IT CAUGHT FIRE.

THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN A CONSTANT BLIGHT TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND HAS BEEN USED AS A STRUCTURE PROVIDING SHELTER TO PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS SINCE THE CASE WAS ORIGINALLY SEAT RECEIVED BY CODE COMPLIANCE.

THIS PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE CURRENT UTILITIES TURNED ON.

I'LL NOW TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PHOTO.

PHOTO TWO A IS A FRONT CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE STRUCTURE SHOWING THE FRONT RIGHT SIDE WITH THE NOTICES OF VIOLATION POSTED TOWARDS THE LEFT OF THE PICTURE IN THE FRONT YARD.

PHOTO TWO B IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE AS SEEN FROM THE FRONT RIGHT OF WAY.

PHOTO TWO C IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE LEFT FRONT SIDE SHOWING TRASH AND DEBRIS LEFT BY SQUATTERS, ALSO AN ABANDONED JUNK VEHICLE IN THE DRIVEWAY.

PHOTO 2D IS A PHOTO OF THE YELLOW WARNING PLACARD THAT WAS POSTED ON SITE.

PHOTO TWO E IS THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE WITH TRASH AND DEBRIS PILED UP BEHIND THE FENCE THERE.

PHOTO TWO F IS A CLOSEUP OF THE FRONT WITH MORE TRASH AND DEBRIS BOARDED UP WINDOWS AND A TARP COVERING SOME OF THE ROOF DAMAGE.

PHOTO TWO G IS, UH, SHOWS BROKEN WINDOWS BOARDED UP AND A CHARRED GABLE VENT AT THE TOP OF THE STRUCTURE OVER THERE TOWARDS THE LEFT BEHIND THAT TREE.

PHOTO TWO H UH, SHOWS BOARDED UP WINDOWS AND BURNED ROOF RAPS AT THE TOP LEFT OF THE PHOTO.

PHOTO TWO I SHOWS BURNED SIDING ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE AND THE RIDGE OF THE ROOF COVERED IN A TARP ALSO DAMAGED TO THE ROOF SHINGLES ALONG THE ROOF'S EDGE.

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 AN, THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.

I 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.

VIRTUALLY AND CURRENTLY HAS HIS CAMERA ON.

B DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND REMOVE HIS DEBRIS LEAVING THE LOT CLEANED AND RIGGED.

C REQUEST INSPECTION FROM THE CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY OF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED.

AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND CONS AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURES AS DEBRIS AND DEP AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH.

AND 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, UH, 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.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, SUPERVISOR THOMAS.

AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS ON THE PRESENT MATTER, INCLUDING, UH, JEFF KELLY, WHO I BELIEVE IS AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS, UH, SEVERAL NEIGHBORS ON THIS PARTICULAR, UM, ISSUE.

UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO, UH, DO TWO THINGS BEFORE WE MOVE ON.

FIRST IS TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO I.

THE OTHER THING IS I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, MENTION FOR THE RECORD THAT COMMISSIONER, UH, TIMOTHY STOAT HAS JOINED

[01:45:01]

SO HE IS ALSO PART OF OUR QUORUM.

AND, UH, I SAW THAT HE, UH, JOINED AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CASE, SO I BELIEVE HE HEARD ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION TO, UH, VOTE ON THE PRESENT MATTER.

UM, SO AT THIS TIME I WOULD, UH, PASS TO THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY AND THEN AFTERWARDS I WILL, UH, BRING UP THE NEIGHBORS TO, UH, DISCUSS.

SO, UM, MR. KELLY, IS THAT YOU? IT IS, UM, IF AT THIS TIME YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF, UH, CITY STAFF, UM, AND IF NOT, THEN YOU MAY MOVE, UH, DIRECTLY INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION.

PERFECT.

UM, A LITTLE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CITY STAFF.

UM, SUPERVISOR THOMPSON.

DID YOU TAKE THESE PICTURES? UM, THESE PICTURES I DID NOT TAKE MYSELF.

SO, SO YOU CAN'T VERIFY THAT THESE ARE ACTUALLY THE, THE PICTURES THAT WERE TAKEN ON THIS PHOTOS? I CAN, I, I HAVE, UM, DOCUMENTATION IN OUR CASE HISTORY PACKET THAT I'VE BEEN OUT TO THIS PROPERTY WITH THE INSPECTOR THAT TOOK THESE PHOTOS.

BUT THAT INSPECTOR'S NOT PRESENT TODAY TESTIFYING.

SHE HAS NOT TESTIFYING TODAY.

UM, SO ON THAT POINT, I'D MOVE, I, I'D OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF THOSE EXHIBITS.

I KNOW THAT YOU ALREADY DID, BUT I DIDN'T GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE BEFORE THAT THOSE ADMISSIONS OF THOSE EXHIBITS WERE MADE.

UH, IN, IN GENERAL, WE ALLOW, UM, CITY STAFF TO, UH, PRESENT ON, UH, PICTURES TAKEN BY OTHER CITY STAFF.

I I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THE VERACITY OF THIS, AND IT IS A NORMAL PROCEDURE TO ADMIT THEM, UH, BEFORE GETTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE.

UM, SO I, I DON'T SEE, UH, A BASIS FOR THAT UNLESS, UM, MS. HERRERA WOULD LIKE TO, UM, PROVIDE ONE.

UH, BUT THAT BEING SAID, YOU MAY, UH, MOVE ON TO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION UNLESS MAY PROVIDE, PROVIDE A LITTLE CONTEXT, IF ANY.

UH, THERE'S NO TESTIMONY THAT'S ON THE RECORD TODAY THAT THOSE PICTURES WERE TAKEN BY THE TESTIFYING, UH, INDIVIDUAL WITH THE CITY.

SO THERE'S NO VERIFICATION OF THOSE, THOSE, THOSE PICTURES.

FOR THESE REASONS, I'D ASK THAT THOSE NOT BE ADMITTED.

UM, IF, UH, IF CITY ATTORNEY COULD, UM, OFFER SOME CLARIFICATION.

I I DON'T CURRENTLY SEE A REASON TO NOT ADMIT THESE, UM, EVEN ON THAT BASIS.

SO IN THE PAST, UM, WHEN WE HAVE HAD AN OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF, UM, CERTAIN EXHIBITS, I KNOW I DO RECALL AN INSTANCE WHERE A SIMILAR OBJECTION WAS MADE AT THE TIME THAT CHAIR SOAD WAS, WAS, UM, THE PRESIDING OFFICER FOR THAT MEETING.

UM, AND HE DID SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION BASED ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS.

UM, AND SO I, I BELIEVE THERE IS TECHNICALLY A PRECEDENT THAT HAS BEEN SET, UM, TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THESE TYPES OF OBJECTIONS, UM, IN IN, IN YOUR EYES, WOULD IT BE SENSIBLE FOR ME TO SUSTAIN THAT OBJECTION? I MEAN, GIVEN THAT WE'VE ALREADY HAD THEM PRESENTED, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I I DON'T SEE, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN OUR, IN OUR PROCEDURES THAT WOULD MAKE THIS INVALID ON THE BASIS THAT THEY'RE PRESENTING OFFICERS NOT THE SAME AS THE OFFICER WHO TOOK THE PHOTO.

PART OF THE CHALLENGE, I THINK WITH, WITH THE PROCEDURES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, UM, IS THAT THEY DO TEND TO BE LESS FORMAL THAN WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN, IN A COURT OF LAW.

UH, BOTH EXHIBIT ONE AND THE PHOTOGRAPH EX EXHIBITS, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'VE HAD THE CHANCE TO REVIEW THE, UH, EXHIBIT ONE, CORRECT? YEAH, I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW EITHER EXHIBIT ONE OR EXHIBIT TWO A THROUGH STANDBY.

UM, LIKE COUNTY COURT AT LAW OR DISTRICT COURT, OR EVEN AT MUNICIPAL COURT.

MM-HMM.

UM, THIS IS COURSE A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD, BUT THE PROCEDURES IN THE WAY THAT WE TYPICALLY HANDLE THE RULES OF EVIDENCE, UM, IS NOT AS, AS, AS FORMAL AS I'VE MENTIONED.

UM, AND A LOT OF IT REALLY IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, UM, YOURSELF IN THIS CASE.

UM, AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE TECHNICALLY SOME PRECEDENT WHERE WE HAVE SUSTAINED THOSE OBJECTIONS.

UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THE EXHIBITS HAD BEEN ADMITTED AT THAT POINT.

UM, BUT AS I MENTIONED, IT'S LARGELY OUR, OUR PROCEDURES ARE INFORMAL.

UM, AND REALLY IT'S WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION CHAIR IF YOU WISH TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION AND, AND WITHDRAW YOUR ADMISSION OF THE EXHIBITS.

UM, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S PERHAPS SOMETHING THAT WE, WE MIGHT NEED TO REVISIT, UM, AT A, AT A FUTURE TIME, AT A LATER TIME, JUST SO THAT WE KIND OF HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF HOW WE CAN ADDRESS THESE SITUATIONS IN THE, IN THE FUTURE.

UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU FOR OFFERING THAT.

UM, MAY, MAY I RESPOND? UH, UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HEAR FROM, DO YOU MIND, UH, JAMES, JUST CLARIFYING FOR US IF WE ARE SPEAKING OF,

[01:50:01]

UH, I, SO, UM, ALSO ON THE FACT THAT EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH, I HAVEN'T BEEN PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED BECAUSE THE OFFICER THAT ALLEGEDLY TOOK THESE PICTURES ON TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY FOR THOSE REASONS WITH LACK OF AUTHENTICATION, PROCEDURALLY, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND, TRUST ME, I SPEND EVERY DAY ALMOST EVERY, ALMOST EVERY DAY, ALL, ALL DAY IN COURT.

I UNDERSTAND THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL, BUT THAT DOESN'T OBVIATE THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THESE PROCEDURES SET FORTH IT'S DUE PROCESS.

AND MY CLIENT RISKS THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING HIS HOME DEMOLISHED.

UH, SO IT SEEMS TO BE IN MY DISCUSSION, AND WITH THAT, I WILL NOT SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS OUR NORMAL PROCEDURE TO ALLOW THESE KINDS OF PHOTOGRAPHS, EVEN WHEN THE, UH, TESTIFYING OFFICER IS NOT THE SAME AS, SORRY, JAMES, WERE YOU WANTING TO SORRY.

DO YOU MIND, UM, RECOGNIZING, UH, CHAIR OAD? UH, SORRY.

WAS HE ASKING TO BE RECOGNIZED? I BELIEVE SO.

UH, CHAIR OAD, IF YOU, UH, WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED AT THIS TIME, YOU'RE WELCOME TO, UH, THANK YOU MA'AM.

CHAIR FIRST, CAN I CONFIRM THAT YOU CAN HEAR ME? I, I HAVE, I DO HAVE SOME AUDIO ISSUES.

YES, WE CAN HEAR YOU.

YEAH, SO I THINK, I THINK THAT THE, THE OBJECT, THE OBJECTION, I THINK AS, AS THE CITY ATTORNEY IS POINTING OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE GOVERNED BY THE, THE TEXAS RULES OF EV I'M SO SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THE TEXAS RULES OF EVIDENCE.

UH, AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO THAT EXTENT THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS ISSUE OF AUTHENTICATION, UH, IT STRIKES ME AS ONE THAT, THAT THAT WOULD BE LIKELY TURN OUT TO BE HARMLESS ERROR BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, SUFFICIENT TESTIMONY, UH, TO ESTABLISH ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

UH, BUT THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S, THAT IS SORT OF A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD BECAUSE IF YOU WERE TO SUSTAIN THE, SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION, YOU KNOW, THEN, THEN YOU RUN THE RISK THAT THERE'S A SUFFICIENCY ISSUE, YOU KNOW? UM, AND SO I, I GUESS IN TERMS OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, HOWEVER, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE SINCE YOU ADMITTED THE, UH, EXHIBITS WITHOUT OBJECTION, UH, FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.

THE COMMISSIONERS HAD NOT YET HEARD THE PARTY'S OBJECTION AS ARTICULATED BY COUNSEL.

IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE TO RECALL THAT ISSUE.

SO, AND, AND, AND PROCEDURALLY, I, I WOULD DEFER TO THE CITY'S ATTORNEY ON THIS, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A MATTER OF, UH, YOU KNOW, A VOTE TO RECONSIDER AND THEN KIND OF PUTTING IT TO THE BODY AS TO WHETHER WE THINK WE WANT A RISK, UM, A ADMITTING THESE, YOU KNOW, ABOVE THE OBJECTION OF THE PARTY.

THAT, THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS.

UH, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT TRYING TO, UH, TO, TO STEP IN HERE, BUT THAT, BUT, BUT THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

UH, I APPRECIATE THE, UM, INPUT, UH, FROM CHA OAT.

UM, IF, UH, MS. GUERRERA WOULD LIKE TO OFFER ANY MORE BASED ON, UH, WHAT, UH, CHAIR OAT SAID, UM, THAT COULD BE APPRECIATED.

WE WAIT ONE MOMENT, CHAIR.

UM, YEAH, MADAM CHAIR, I'VE JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT THE INDIVIDUAL, UH, WHO TOOK THE PHOTOGRAPHS IS ACTUALLY HERE NOW AND CAN PRESENT OR OFFER TESTIMONY IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

UH, FANTASTIC.

UM, IS, YEAH, THANK YOU.

IN THAT CASE.

FIRST LET ME ASK YOU, UM, WITH REGARDS TO TIMEKEEPING, SHOULD WE STOP THE TIMEKEEPING WHILE WE CONSIDER THIS MOTION? I JUST GOT A QUESTION FROM, UH, JAMES EVERWINE REGARDING THAT.

SO IT, SO WE'RE, HOLD ON.

SO WE'RE STILL, THE CITY IS STILL PRESENTING, I BELIEVE THIS IS TECHNICALLY AFTER THE CITY HAS PRESENTED, BUT BECAUSE NOW WE'RE IN CROSS EXAMIN, THIS IS DURING THE CROSS EXAMINATION PERIOD? YES.

WHICH IS TYPICALLY ONLY THREE MINUTES, BUT RIGHT.

HAS PRESENTED AN ISSUE THAT PERHAPS EXTENDS BEYOND THAT.

IS THERE STILL TIME WITHIN, I BELIEVE TIME IS STILL BEING CAPPED BY, UH, JAMES ERWIN.

UM, I STOPPED AT ABOUT SIX 30, BUT I WASN'T SURE WHAT, WHAT WE WERE COUNTING AS THE, UM, TESTIMONIES MM-HMM .

UM, SO THE WAY I'M, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT IS THE, THE CITY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT, THEY GIVE THEIR INITIAL PRESENTATION MM-HMM .

UH, DOES THAT SEEM PROPER, OR SHOULD WE, SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AS SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THE CROSS EXAMINATION PERIOD? PERHAPS? I WILL SAY THIS HAS NOT COME UP BEFORE, SO IT'S A BIT OF A, UNDER A UNIQUE SITUATION.

[01:55:01]

THE OPPOSING PARTY THEN HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE, UM, BEFORE GIVING THEIR, PRESENT THEIR PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION.

BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION PART IS ACTUALLY A PART OF THE CITY'S PRESENTATION.

AND VICE VERSA, IF THE CITY WERE DOING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF, UM, OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEN THAT WOULD NOT TECHNICALLY BE DOCKED FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE THEIR PRESENTATION, UM, OR TO GIVE THEIR SUMMATION AS WELL.

SO IN THAT CASE, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE COUNTING AGAINST THE TIME.

UM, IF I, OH, I'M SORRY FOR, FOR CLARIFICATION CHAIR, UM, VICE CHAIR, UM, THE CROSS-EXAMINATION PORTION WOULD NOT COUNT AGAINST THE CITY'S TIME, BUT THE, UH, THE NEW PRESENTER FOR THE CITY WOULD, WOULD NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO WHATEVER TIME REMAINS FROM THE CITY'S PRESENTATION IS, IS WHAT SHE WOULD SPEAK.

NOW, OF COURSE, IT IS WITHIN YOUR, IT IS WHAT THE NEW SPEAKER, RIGHT.

IT IS WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION TO EXTEND TIME, AS LONG AS THAT SAME EXTENSION AND COURTESY IS GIVEN TO, UM, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, SO THAT THIS WAY THEY HAVE EQUAL AND EQUAL AMOUNT OF TIME TO SPEAK.

UM, I DO THINK WE PROBABLY NEED TO AT LEAST ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE US, UM, WHICH IS THE, THE ISSUE OF THE OBJECTION.

MM-HMM.

UM, I, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THE PROCEDURE THAT, UM, COMMISSIONER SOAD HAS PROPOSED, AT LEAST TO ADDRESS THIS, THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

AGAIN, WE DON'T OFTEN ENCOUNTER THIS, UM, BUT I THINK IT, IT'S AN EQUITABLE WAY OF MOVING FORWARD AND TO AT LEAST RESOLVE THE QUESTION ON THE TABLE.

DEFINITELY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ELAINE GARRETT.

IN THAT CASE, I THINK THE PLAN HERE, UM, FIRST I THINK I SAW, UM, A HAND FROM DIRECTOR, UH, ELAINE GARRETT, UM, IF SHE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, WEIGH IN, UM, BEFORE I, I HAVE A PLAN HERE, SO LET'S, UM, HEAR FROM HER AND THEN I, I WILL, UH, DESCRIBE WHAT I WANT TO DO.

UH, ACTUALLY MY HAND WAS ONLY TO INFORM Y'ALL THAT WE HAVE THE INSPECTOR HERE ON SITE.

UM, THAT INSPECTOR WAS IN TRAINING, SO THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY TAKEN WITH THEIR, THEIR RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO TAKE THE PHOTOS.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD RECEIVE.

AND IS THIS A CODE OFFER OFFICER MEHI MOODY, IS THAT CORRECT? MAHARI MOODY.

MAHARI MOODY.

UM, IN THAT CASE, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS, UM, FIRST VOTE TO RECONSIDER, UM, OR VOTE TO, UM, HOW ABOUT EXTEND THE CITY'S TIME? UH, SO I THINK IT WAS FIRST TO VOTE TO RECALL, VOTE TO RECALL YOUR ADMISSION OF THE EXHIBITS.

AND THEN PUT IT BEFORE THE BOARD, UH, THANK YOU.

AND PUT IT BEFORE THAT, BEFORE THE BOARD.

IN THAT CASE, UM, I THINK WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS FIRST VOTE TO RECALL MY ADMISSION OF THE EXHIBIT, THEN VOTE TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE, AT WHICH POINT I MAY EXTEND, UH, MORE TIME TO THE CITY WITH MORE TIME PRESENTED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IN KIND, UM, TO ADDRESS THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AT WHICH POINT WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

SO FIRST, WITH THAT VOTE TO RECALL, AGAIN, THIS IS A VOTE TO RECALL THE ADMISSION OF THE EXHIBITS.

RIGHT HAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

NAY.

THAT IS, UM, SIX A'S, UM, ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER STOAT, I DID NOT CATCH WHAT YOURS WAS.

UH, I SEE A, UH, THUMBS UP, BUT IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE, IS THERE ANY CHANCE YOU COULD UNMUTE JUST TO, AYE.

I, OKAY.

HEARING SEVEN I'S AND ONE NAY THAT PASSES.

UM, SO THE ADMISSION OF THIS, OF THE EXHIBITS IS RECALLED AT THIS TIME.

I BELIEVE IT WAS SAID THAT IT IS DISCRETIONARY FOR ME TO, UM, OFFER MORE TIME TO THE CITY STAFF IN EXCHANGE FOR A PROPORTIONAL AMOUNT OF TIME TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

SO IF THIS TIME I COULD ASK MAHARI MOODY, UM, COULD OFFICER MAHARI MOODY TO, UM, SPEAK AS TO WHETHER OR NOT SHE DID IN FACT TAKE THESE PICTURES? MM-HMM .

UH, UH, YES, PLEASE.

INSPECTOR MOODY, UH, REQUIRES BEING SWORN IN.

UH, YES, YOU ARE CORRECT.

IF AT THIS TIME, UH, INSPECTOR MOODY, YOU WOULDN'T MIND, UH, STANDING TO TAKE THE OATH

[02:00:05]

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO.

I DO.

YOU MAY BE SEATED.

AND NOW IF YOU MAY, UH, BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY ON THESE PHOTOS.

UM, I WILL EXTEND, LET'S SAY TWO MINUTES, AND I WILL GIVE, UM, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER AN ADDITIONAL TWO MINUTES TO ALSO DISCUSS HIS E AFFIRMATIVE CASE.

UM, YOU MAY BEGIN NOW.

HI, MY NAME IS MAHARI MOODY.

I'M A CODE INSPECTOR SINCE MARCH OF THIS YEAR, AND I DID TAKE THE PHOTOS.

UM, WITH THAT, I WILL, I BELIEVE WITH, UM, UNLESS THERE IS FURTHER OBJECTION TO THE ADMISSION OF THESE PHOTOS, MAY I HAVE A CROSS? UH, YOU MAY.

MS. MOODY, WHEN DID YOU TAKE THESE PICTURES? I DUNNO, THE PICTURES TAKEN.

IT'S A DATE ON THOSE PICTURES.

UH, CAN WE PULL UP THE PHOTOS AGAIN? UH, JUST SO THEY'RE VISIBLE.

OH, THAT WOULD'VE, THAT WOULD'VE BEEN JUNE 13TH, 2025.

JUNE, MS. MOODY, I APOLOGIZE.

I HAVEN'T SEEN THESE UNTIL JUST NOW.

SO, UM, TAKE YOU TO, I THINK IT'S TWO H EARLIER THERE WAS TESTIMONY THAT TWO H SHOWED WINDOWS WERE BOARDED UP AND RAFTERS BURNED.

DO YOU, DO YOU SEE ANY RAFTERS BURNED OR IS THAT JUST THE FASCIA THAT'S BURNED? RAFTERS, THE TOP LEFT SIDE OF THE PHOTO OR WHICH SHOWED? YEAH.

RIGHT THERE.

AND MS. MOODY, IN YOUR OPINION AS A CODE INSPECTOR, SINCE, UH, THIS YEAR, SINCE EARLY THIS YEAR, MARCH OF THIS YEAR, DO YOU BELIEVE THIS HOME CAN BE RENOVATED AND REPAIRED? NO.

TELL ME WHY.

UM, DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE HOME AS WELL AS THE, UM, THE, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS AND HOW THEY HAVE TREATED THE HOME AT, AT THIS POINT, I DON'T THINK IT IS.

IT CAN BE REPAIRED.

MY CLIENT FAILED TO COMPLY UNTIL SHE HIRED ME.

I'LL PASS THE WITNESS.

UM, IS THERE ANY FURTHER OBJECTION TO THESE PHOTOS BEING ADMITTED? NO, NOT, NOT AT THIS TIME.

IN THAT CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO ADMIT PHOTOS TWO A THROUGH TWO.

I I BELIEVE THERE WAS ALSO AT ONE POINT AN OBJECTION TO EXHIBIT ONE.

ARE YOU ALSO CONTINUING WITH THAT OBJECTION? I'LL WITHDRAW THAT OBJECTION.

IN THAT CASE.

I WILL ALSO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE.

WITH THAT YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR AFFIRMATIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THIS CASE.

CASE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.

FIRST, I WANNA THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

UM, THIS IS A DIFFICULT JOB.

UM, IT'S, IT'S ONE THAT'S SOMETIMES THANKLESS , AND SO I DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TODAY.

UH, WE'VE PREPARED TWO EXHIBITS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AS EXHIBIT ONE.

EXHIBIT ONE THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY MARKED AS EXHIBIT ONE.

YOU'LL NOTICE IN THIS PACKET TWO ITEMS. ONE IS A AUSTIN FIRE AND FLOOD RESTORATION EX, UM, RESTORATION QUOTE.

IT'S THIS EXPERT'S OPINION THAT THIS PROPERTY IN FACT CAN BE REPAIRED AND HAS QUOTED EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE TO DO.

MY CLIENT, UH, HAS ELECTED TO DO SO.

THE SECOND PART OF EXHIBIT ONE IS A LOAN QUOTE THAT MY CLIENTS OBTAINED TO FINANCE THE, UH, THE REPAIRS INTENDED.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CHARTER OF THE CITY AND ALSO THE, UH, DIRECTIVES OF THIS COMMISSION ARE FOR COMPLIANCE.

[02:05:01]

UM, FOR THIS LAST MONTH, UH, CITY STAFF HAS BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH.

I THINK PARTIALLY IT'S BECAUSE NOW THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT THEY CAN EMAIL AND THEY CAN CALL.

BUT THE POINT OF THAT IS SIMPLE.

WE WANT TO COMPLY.

MY CLIENT WANTS TO COMPLY.

NOW THAT I'M INVOLVED IN THIS TRANSACTION, WE WILL COMPLY, BUT WE NEED ADDITIONAL TIME TO DO SO.

AS I STATED, MY CLIENT'S INTENT IS TO RENOVATE THIS PROPERTY AND, UH, HAS MADE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE FINANCING TO DO SO.

MY CLIENTS ALSO ASKED ME TO EXPRESS FRUSTRATION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE ARE NO TRESPASSING SIGNS STREWN THROUGHOUT THIS PROPERTY.

IT'S INTERESTING THAT NONE OF THE PICTURES SHOWED THAT, BUT THERE ARE, BUT WE'RE NOT GETTING ENFORCEMENT FROM THE CITY, MEANING PATROLS ARE NOT THERE.

UH, IF WE NOTICE UP SOMEBODY THAT, OR NOTICE UP THE CITY THAT THERE IS A HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT THERE, SOMEBODY HAS PENETRATED THE EXTERIOR OF THE, OF THE BUILDING.

THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT.

UM, THESE PEOPLE WITH THE TRESPASSING SIGNS, UM, ARE TRESPASSING.

THEY'VE BEEN WARNED OF THIS, BUT THEY CONTINUE TO COME BACK.

SO MY CLIENT CONTINUES TO BOARD UP THESE WINDOWS.

WITH THAT CHALLENGE, IT'S ARGUABLY UNFAIR FOR THE CITY TO NOW MOVE TO DEMOLISH THIS PROPERTY.

I URGE YOU TO TAKE THIS DECISION THIS EVENING VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY.

ARGUABLY, THIS IS A REGULATORY TAKING ONE, WHICH NEEDS YOUR CAREFUL CONSIDERATION.

UM, THERE'S PROOF IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING THAT SHOWS THAT MY CLIENT HAS THE INTENT TO, TO, UH, REMODEL THIS PROPERTY AND MAKE IT, UH, A COMPLIANT PROPERTY.

UH, THERE'S ALSO PROOF THAT MY CLIENT HAS APPLIED FOR FINANCING TO DO SO.

FOR THESE REASONS, I'D URGE THE URGE YOU TO CONSIDER, RATHER THAN DEMOLISHING TO MOVE FOR, UH, REMODEL OR ALLOW TIME TO DO SO.

AND BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT OF THE REMODEL THAT'S REQUIRED, UH, WE'D ASK FOR ADDITIONAL TIME AS WELL.

IF THAT CONCLUDES YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION, I WILL PASS IT TO THE CITY TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEN TO, UM, PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SUMMATION.

UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO SO NOW, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

MORE STATEMENTS, I GUESS, SO I WAS JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED.

OH, I'M SORRY.

I WAS JUST A LITTLE CONFUSED.

THERE'S A FOR SALE SIGN IN THE FRONT YARD TOO, SO I DON'T KNOW.

WERE THEY JUST PLANNING OR WERE THEY TRYING TO SELL IT ACTIVELY, LIKE RIGHT NOW BEFORE REPAIRS ARE MADE? OR WERE THEY TRYING TO REPAIR? 'CAUSE YOU HAD SAID THEY, THAT YOUR CLIENT WANTS TO REPAIR THE PROPERTY.

SO, UM, I WAS JUST CONFUSED AS TO WHY THERE'S THE FOR SALE SIGN.

IF THAT'S A QUESTION, I'D LOVE TO ANSWER IT.

UH, YOU'RE WELCOME.

TAKE THIS.

I WASN'T SURE IT WASN'T PHRASED THAT WAY, SO I WAS LIKE, I KNOW I DIDN'T PHRASE IT VERY WELL.

IS IT A STATEMENT OR QUESTION? I WAS JUST SAYING I WAS CONFUSED.

SO YOU'RE CORRECT.

THERE IS A FOR SALE SIGN AND OR THERE WAS A FOR SALE SIGN.

UM, MY CLIENT HAD INSURANCE ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE'S A MORTGAGE ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

UH, THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS, UM, WEREN'T SUFFICIENT TO, TO REMODEL THE PROPERTY.

SO WHAT THEY DID AT FIRST WAS TO PUT THE PROPERTY FOR SALE.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE OFFERS THAT THEY WERE RECEIVING WERE SUBSTANDARD.

THEY WERE NOWHERE CLOSE TO WHAT, UH, THEY NEEDED FOR THE PROPERTY AT THAT POINT.

THEY THEN DECIDED TO GO THE OTHER DIRECTION, REMODEL IT, AND THEN SELL THE PROPERTY.

SO AS IT SETS TODAY, CURRENT PLAN AND PROOF'S IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING IS TO REMODEL IT.

UH, WELL GET THE LOAN, REMODEL IT, PULL ALL THE PROPER PERMITS, AND LIKE I SAID, IMPROVE THIS PROPERTY.

SO IT'S A COMPLIANT PROPERTY.

TO WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNERS KENNY WAS, UH, JUST SITTING.

AND THEN JUST ONE MORE COMMENT REGARDING THE HOMELESS SITUATION THERE.

I DO AGREE THAT THAT'S A HUGE ISSUE.

UM, WE DEBATED PUTTING A FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY TO KEEP THEM OUT, BUT WE DEBATED IT.

UM, AFTER THE FIRST OR SECOND FIRE CALL, WE WERE HESITANT TO PUT A FENCE AROUND IT TO PROVIDE MORE PROTECTION, ONLY BECAUSE WE THOUGHT IF THERE'S A FIRE THAT'S GONNA BE AN ADDITIONAL STEP THAT THE FIRE CREW WOULD HAVE TO GET THROUGH THAT FENCE BEING PUT.

SO IT WAS SORT OF A CATCH 22.

WE DID JUST, WE TALKED ABOUT PUTTING A FENCE AROUND TO TRY TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT, BUT THEN WE DIDN'T WANT TO.

UM, WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE ON OTHER PROPERTIES.

THEY CUT THE FENCE, BREAK THE FENCE, GET IN ANYWAY, CAN KEEP, UM, INCURRING FIRE DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY.

AND SO WE JUST DECIDED NOT TO PUT THE FENCE UP FOR, FOR THAT REASON.

SO THAT MAKES, YEAH, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT.

UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT TESTIMONY.

UM, AT THIS TIME I BELIEVE WE HAVE INTERESTED PARTIES WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

UM, THEY MAY COME UP

[02:10:01]

UM, ONCE WE MOVE INTO THE, UH, QUESTION PORTION, UM, I MIGHT ASK YOU JUST TO, UH, COME BACK UP.

UH, JUST, BUT JUST FOR RIGHT NOW, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY OF THE, UM, INTERESTED PARTIES TO SPEAK.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UM, WE INTERESTED PARTIES.

UM, BUT ONE OF THEM MAY HAVE LEFT.

I HAVE ON MY LIST, UM, EMILY ABEL, UH, JEFF KELLY, AND, UH, MAGGIE.

JAMIE.

UM, IS THAT I HI, YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AS EMILY BEL AND, UM, ARE YOU MAGGIE? JAMIE.

MAGGIE.

HI.

UM, IN THAT CASE, YOU MAY BEGIN YOUR, UH, PRESENTATION IN EITHER ORDER.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

UM, I JUST WANNA PUT ON RECORD THAT THIS HOUSE CAUGHT ON FIRE ON JANUARY 17TH, 2024.

UM, SO IT HAS BEEN IN THIS STATE FOR ALMOST 18 MONTHS.

THE HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT CAME IN VERY QUICKLY AFTER THAT FIRE.

THE REASON WE WERE TOLD BY AN OCCUPANT OF THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S SON, AFTER THE FIRE HAPPENED, MY HUSBAND AND I WERE INFORMED THAT THE FIRE HAPPENED BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWING HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS FROM AN ENCAMPMENT IN THE WOODS THAT WERE RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR HOUSE TO STAY IN THEIR GARAGE.

AND THAT ACTUALLY MADE THE FIRE HAPPEN.

THAT DESTROYED THAT PART OF THE PROPERTY AND MADE THE PROPERTY INHABITABLE FOR, UM, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

SINCE THEN, LIKE IT'S BEEN MENTIONED, THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE FIRES.

MOST RECENTLY, MY HUSBAND AND OUR TWO YOUNG CHILDREN WERE EVACUATED FROM OUR HOME AT 1230 IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, UM, BECAUSE A FIRE WAS ENCROACHING ON OUR FENCE AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TOLD US THAT WE NEEDED TO LEAVE.

SO, UM, YEAH, IT'S AN UNSANITARY CONDITION.

IT'S A DANGEROUS CONDITION.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE FAMILIES THAT LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, YOU CAN, THE PRO THE THE PHOTOS THAT ARE SHOWED TONIGHT DON'T EVEN DO CLOSE TO JUSTICE ON WHAT THAT PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE.

UM, THE PROPERTY WAS LISTED FOR SALE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS.

I JUST LOOKED ON THE MLS.

IT WAS LISTED 35 DAYS AGO FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME.

IT HAD NOT BEEN ON THE MLS UNTIL 35 DAYS AGO.

SO WHATEVER IS BEING STATED ON THE PROPERTY OWNER SIDE, THERE WAS A REALTOR SIGN OUT THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

IT WAS NEVER LISTED ON THE MLS.

I'M NOT SURE IF THERE WAS ANY INTENT TO ACTUALLY SELL THE PROPERTY.

UM, AND THEN IT'S CONTINUED TO DETERIORATE INTO ITS CURRENT STATE.

UM, UNSANITARY MOUNDS OF TRASH EVERYWHERE.

UM, THERE WAS A DEAD DOG IN THEIR POOL AT ONE POINT AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT CARS IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY EVERY SINGLE DAY.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHO'S STAYING ON THAT PROPERTY, WHO'S GOING IN AND OUTTA THAT HOUSE, WHAT'S TRANSPIRING IN THAT HOUSE.

UM, AND THERE ARE ALSO TWO CARS THAT HAVE BEEN PARKED ON THE PROPERTY, UH, FOR THE PAST, AT LEAST THREE TO FOUR MONTHS, A VAN AND A TAHOE THAT PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN CONTINUALLY ON THE PROPERTY.

AND I WILL PASS IT OVER TO MAGGIE.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS MAGGIE HYMAN.

I LIVE, UH, DIRECTLY NEXT TO, UH, 1807 FERGUSON.

UM, I'M HERE TODAY TO URGENTLY ASK THAT YOU, UM, UH, MOVE TO DEMOLISH THIS PROPERTY.

THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN A DANGER TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, FOR A LONG TIME AT THIS POINT, A HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT HAS EXISTED THERE FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS, EVEN PRIOR TO THE HOME BURNING DOWN, UH, IT WAS A PERSON FROM THE ENCAMPMENT ITSELF THAT EMILY ALLUDED TO WHO ACTUALLY STARTED THE FIRE THAT BURNED DOWN THE HOUSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND SINCE THEN, THE PROPERTY HAS GOTTEN WORSE.

THE UNHOUSED INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE, UM, STAYING THERE HAVE COMPLETELY TAKEN OVER, NOT JUST THE INSIDE OF THE BURN STRUCTURE, BUT ALSO THE BACKYARD AND SURROUNDING MAKESHIFT STRUCTURES THAT THEY'VE CREATED.

UM, WE HAVE HAD PROPERTY STOLEN FROM OUR FRONT YARD BY PEOPLE LIVING THERE.

I'VE HAD THEM KNOCK ON MY DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WHILE I'M HOME ALONE WITH MY CHILDREN AND MY HUSBAND IS TRAVELING.

WE HAVE CONSTANTLY, WE CONSTANTLY HEAR WOMEN SCREAMING IN THE NIGHT GUNSHOTS AND HAVE WITNESSED COUNTLESS POLICE RESPONSES TO THIS PROPERTY.

THERE IS AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF TRASH LITTER AND ABANDONED CARS SCATTERED AROUND.

IT LOOKS TERRIBLE, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT FEELS REALLY DANGEROUS.

UH, WE DO NOT LET OUR CHILDREN PLAY IN OUR BACKYARD BECAUSE WE SIMPLY DO NOT PLAY IN OUR BACKYARD ALONE BECAUSE WE SIMPLY DO NOT FEEL SAFE LETTING THEM BE BACK THERE ON THEIR OWN.

THE PROPERTY HAS CAUGHT FIRE TWICE NOW, AND THE TIMES THAT IT HAS, UM, WE FEAR THAT THE FIRE COULD SPREAD INTO OUR NEIGHBORING HOMES AND THE RISK TO LIFE, NOT EVEN JUST TO US, BUT TO THE FOLKS, THE UNHOUSED FOLKS, IS ALSO REALLY SCARY TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY OF THEM.

UM, I URGE YOU PLEASE, FOR THE SAFETY AND THE PEACE OF MIND AND WELLBEING OF ALL THE FAMILIES WHO LIVE NEAR THERE AND ALSO THE UNHOUSED INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE THERE.

UM, THAT IT'S, IT'S REALLY TIME FOR THIS

[02:15:01]

STRUCTURE TO COME DOWN AND IT'S FAR BEYOND REPAIR AND IT HAS BECOME A MAGNET FOR CRIME AND DANGER AND REALLY HARMING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU FOR OFFERING THAT TESTIMONY.

UM, UNLESS MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE NEIGHBORS, UM, I MIGHT ASK Y'ALL TO, UH, STEP BACK SO THAT WAY THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER'S ATTORNEY CAN, UM, GO BACK UP TO THE DAIS.

UM, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO PASS IT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO, UM, IF, UH, YES, COMMISSIONER IRA, CAN YOU PLEASE TELL US OF ANY SECURITY MEASURES YOUR CLIENT HAS TAKEN TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY? WE DIDN'T SPEAK OF THAT, UH, THIS MORNING WHEN I SPOKE TO HIM ABOUT THE SECURITY MEASURES.

UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE, THE DOORS AND WINDOWS HAVE BEEN BOARDED UP.

I WOULD CONSIDER URGING MY CLIENT TO INSTALL A FENCE.

I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT ALLEVIATES THE ISSUES OF THE NEIGHBORS.

AND THE ISSUES WITH THE NEIGHBORS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE, THE SUBSTANTIAL PROBLEM THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS WITH HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS.

IF WE PUT FENCES UP, THEY CAN CRAWL OVER THE FENCES OR KNOCK 'EM DOWN.

THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM THAT MY CLIENT HAS.

THAT'S A PROBLEM THE CITY OF AUSTIN HAS.

WE WOULD URGE YOU GUYS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS AREA.

IT'S, IT'S, IT'S AN INCREDIBLE ISSUE, ESPECIALLY BEHIND MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY.

AND NOW, UNFORTUNATELY, WITHOUT THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED A TAXPAYER FOR OVER 50 YEARS NOW, MY CLIENT'S DEALING WITH THESE SAME ISSUES.

COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH, WHAT WAS YOUR NAME, SIR? I'M SORRY.

JEFF KELLY.

MR. KELLY, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE, UM, THE OFFSET PART OF THESE FINES THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY ASSESS? I YOU'RE AWARE THAT IF WE ASSESSED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, UH, OF FINES, THAT, UH, IT WOULD BE ULTIMATELY REDUCED BY AS A MATTER OF ESSENTIALLY STATUTE IS MY UNDERSTANDING OR, UH, UH, THROUGH THIS PROGRAM, UH, FOR EVERY DOLLAR THAT YOUR CLIENT SPENDS ON REHABBING THE HOUSE.

CORRECT.

UM, I NOTICED IN YOUR PRO IN THE PROPOSAL FOR REPAIR THAT THEY'RE ESTIMATING THREE MONTHS IS, UH, BECAUSE THAT'S, I MEAN, I, I USE THE AMOUNT OF TIME THEY EXPECT TO NEED A PORTA-POTTY ON THE PROPERTY.

BUT IS THAT, IS THAT AN ACCURATE TIMELINE YOU THINK ONCE PERMITS ARE ISSUED? I THINK IT'S, IT'S ACCURATE, BUT AS THIS ENTIRE COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS, I'M SIMPLY TRYING TO PUT A POOL IN AND I'M THREE MONTHS IN.

SO IF, IF, IF YOU ADD ALL THAT TOGETHER, IF I SAY START TODAY WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, I THINK IT'S SIX PLUS MONTHS.

NOW, YOU WOULD ADMIT, BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID WITH THIS HOMELESS ISSUE, THAT EVEN WITH ENHANCED SECURITY, IT MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE TO KEEP HOMELESS OFF THE PROPERTY.

SO HOW CAN YOU GUARANTEE THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WILL BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THESE REPAIRS AND ACTUALLY CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THE ACTUAL HOUSE? SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'LL BE SOMEBODY THERE THAT'S ACTUALLY WORKING.

I'VE FOUND IT, AND I GREW UP IN CONSTRUCTION.

IF THERE'S CONSTANT ACTIVITY IMPROVING THE PROPERTY, THE, THE HOMELESS POPULATION IS LESS LIKELY TO SET UP AN ENCAMPMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE AWARE THAT SOMEBODY'S GONNA BE THERE THAT NEXT MORNING AT SEVEN 30 OR EIGHT O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.

SO SIMPLY BECAUSE THE INCREASED ACTIVITY BY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS, I THINK THIS PROBLEM WOULD BE ALLEVIATED.

YOU'D ADMIT THOUGH, THAT THERE IS, THAT'S NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT RIGHT.

YOU SAY THERE'S STILL A RISK UNTIL THE CITY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT ENFORCEMENT OF THIS SITUATION.

THERE'S NO WAY I CAN GIVE YOU A HUNDRED PERCENT GUARANTEE.

WELL, I, I THINK THE PROBLEMS THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS IS THAT YOUR PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT ENFORCING THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS TO KEEP TRESPASSERS OFF THE HOUSE.

IF YOU RECALL HER TESTIMONY, HER TESTIMONY WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOMELESS POPULATION.

THE HOMELESS POPULATION WASN'T INVITED INTO MY CLIENT'S HOUSE DESPITE WHAT WAS TESTIFIED BY, BY THE NEIGHBORS.

BUT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, BUT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE CONCEPT OF RELATIVELY ATTRACTIVE NUISANCES.

RIGHT? OF COURSE.

AND YOU WOULD AGREE THAT IT'S A PROPERTY OWNER'S GENERAL DUTY TO KEEP ATTRACTIVE NEWS BUSINESS AWAY, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IF THEY KNOW THAT THERE ARE CHILDREN RUNNING ABOUT THAT, THERE'S A SERIOUS LIABILITY ISSUE THERE.

OF COURSE.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE, SO I GUESS, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS IT THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP HOMELESS FOLKS OFF OF YOUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY? UH, MR. NAME, I APOLOGIZE.

UH, MR. TVI IS ALL RIGHT.

MVI.

MR. MVI, IF THE CITY IN ACTS ORDINANCES MM-HMM .

ONE OF WHICH IS TRESPASSING.

A FENCE THAT, DO YOU SEE THE POINT THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE? A HUNDRED PERCENT.

IT'S A CLASS, CLASS B MISDEMEANOR, I BELIEVE.

WHY DID THEY NOT ENFORCE THOSE? SO, I GUESS MY, AGAIN, MY QUESTION IS, YOU'RE AWARE YOUR CLIENT HAS BEEN AWARE THAT THERE IS A HOMELESS ISSUE ON THEIR PROPERTY GOING BACK EVEN FARTHER THAN THE FIRE.

AND TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GETTING

[02:20:01]

I SEE YOUR POINT.

AND SO THE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A HOMELESS POPULATION ISSUE IN AUSTIN.

I WORK WITH THE HOMELESS, BUT YOU WOULD ALSO ADMIT THAT IT'S YOUR CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP THEIR PROPERTY SAFE AND FREE OF ATTRACTIVE NUISANCES.

THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS AS IT IS WITH ALL PROPERTY OWNERS.

NOW, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHY DID IT TAKE YOUR, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO'S GOTTEN YOUR CLIENT TO COMPLY.

WHY IS, WHY IS IT YOU THAT HAS CHANGED THIS EQUATION FOR YOUR CLIENT? A AS THE CITY STAFF OR FIRM? UH, WE WERE IN CONTACT MAYBE A MONTH AGO MM-HMM .

AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN I HAVE MY CLIENTS PROVIDING THE, THE QUOTES.

I HAVE MY CLIENTS PROVIDING THE PROOF THAT HE'S APPLIED FOR, THAT THEY'VE BEEN APPLIED FOR FINANCING.

WHY IS IT THAT IT TOOK ME, I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I WASN'T INVOLVED TWO MONTHS AGO, THREE MONTHS AGO.

LET'S, NOW THAT I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, I CAN AFFIRM TO YOU THAT MY CLIENTS WILL START TAKING AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TOWARDS RECTIFYING THIS SITUATION.

NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALSO HAPPENED AROUND THAT TIME WAS THE POSTED NOTICE OF THIS HEARING, RIGHT.

WITH A POTENTIAL FOR ASSESSED FINES.

SO YOU WOULD AGREE FROM THE OUTSIDE, POTENTIALLY THAT LOOKS LIKE THE FINES ARE QUITE INCENTIVIZING FOR YOUR CLIENT.

I CAN'T AGREE TO THE, THE INCENTIVIZATION OF THE, OF THE FINES, BUT WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THE REALTOR THAT HAD POSTED THE PROPERTY FOR SALE MM-HMM .

NOTICE THE NOTICE SENT TO MY CLIENT AND MY CLIENT AND RETAIN ME TO TAKE CARE OF THE SITUATION.

SO THE REALTOR WHO'S TRYING TO SELL THE HOUSE, FOUND THE FINES AND TOLD YOUR CLIENT, AND THEN YOUR CLIENT HIRED YOU, AND NOW YOU'RE HERE FOUND THE NOTICE.

AND THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO ME BY MY CLIENT.

SO THE NOTICE GOT TO YOUR CLIENT THROUGH A REALTOR? CORRECT.

SO, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE A FIRE IN JANUARY, 2024.

YOUR CLIENT DID NOT SEEM TO CARE ABOUT, I'M JUST, I'M JUST TELLING YOU HOW IT LOOKS.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE HE DIDN'T CARE TO HIRE PROFESSIONAL HELP TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM UNTIL WE THREATENED TO FIND HIM.

SO, I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO COME AT YOU, MR. KELLY.

I'M JUST SAYING YOUR CLIENT, TRUST ME, IS PRETTY DEEP IN ALREADY BY THE TIME YOU'VE GOTTEN TO THIS COMMISSION.

AND SO I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I'M ALSO GOING TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF SAY YOU CAUSED THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS YOUR CLIENT'S GENERAL DUTY TO MAINTAIN, HAS REALLY CAUSED A LOT OF PROBLEMS FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANT THIS REMODEL TO GO THROUGH, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK A THREE MONTH TIMELINE IS OBVIOUSLY UNREALISTIC.

THERE ARE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT COULD STILL ARISE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S, YOU'RE PRETTY DEEP IN THIS ALREADY.

UM, AND SO, UH, I, I, I GUESS I'M A LITTLE SKEPTICAL.

UM, I'M A LITTLE SKEPTICAL OF, OF THAT PROCESS.

YOU KNOW, I, THAT'S GENERALLY HOW WE'D LIKE TO DO STUFF HERE.

BUT I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT WE'RE PRETTY DEEP IN THIS ALREADY.

AND SO I WOULD JUST SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, YOUR CLIENT HAS REALLY DROPPED THE BALL AND PUT YOU IN A TOUGH POSITION NEGOTIATING HERE TODAY.

I'M DEFINITELY BUYING EIGHT BALL .

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

NOTICE WITH A PD? I DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT I'D LOVE TO PROVIDE THAT TO YEAH, BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ORDINANCE THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO ENFORCE.

COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

HOW DID WE GET TO DEMO INSTEAD OF REPAIR? HOW DID WE, WE NORMALLY THAT I SAY NORMALLY BOTH TIMES WE SEE, RIGHT? WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO REPAIR AND THEN WE SEE THIS COME LATER.

I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY WE LANDED HERE INSTEAD OF REPAIR.

IS THERE SOME SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW OR? I, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY DUE TO THE CONDITIONS, UM, THAT THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL, UM, FIRES AT THE PROPERTY AND THAT, UM, AT THIS POINT WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT IS, UH, SUSTAINABLE FOR A REPAIR.

UM, OF COURSE, I DON'T HAVE THE INTERIOR PICTURES.

I DON'T HAVE INTERIOR PHOTOS, BUT THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL FIRES INSIDE.

UM, AND IT'S BEEN INHABITED BY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS.

I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE INSIDE.

BUT, UM, THE BURNED, CHARRED, UH, BURNED RAFTERS IN THE BURNED GARAGE, UM, JUST LED US TO DECIDE THAT WE NEEDED, IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR DEMO INSTEAD OF REPAIR.

AND I, I'D LIKE TO ADD TO DIVISION MANAGER ROBERT MOORE.

UM, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE STRUCTURALLY UNSOUND OR WHERE IT CAN'T BE REPAIRED.

I MEAN, IF, IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, I MEAN, ANYTHING COULD BE REPAIRED WITH ENOUGH MONEY, RIGHT? SURE.

BUT WE ALSO LOOK AT THE SAFETY FACTOR, RIGHT? LIKE THE ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.

THERE'S BEEN TWO FIRES.

I MEAN, THIS IS A DANGEROUS STRUCTURE TO A COMMUNITY.

DOESN'T MEAN IT MIGHT NOT FALL ON ANYBODY, BUT IT'S CAUSING DANGEROUS ACTIVITY AROUND THERE.

UM, SO WE TAKE ALL THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE'RE, WHEN WE'RE THINKING DEMO OR REPAIR.

UH, I HAD A QUICK QUESTION TOO.

WHEN DID YOUR CLIENT FILE THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS

[02:25:01]

WELL, WE CAN'T AFFORD, WE CAN'T ENFORCE IT UNLESS THAT'S FILED.

AND THEN WE CAN REMOVE THOSE INDIVIDUALS FROM THE PROPERTY IS THERE, AND I CAN, OR THE CITY STAFF AFTER.

BUT IF, IS THERE A WAY THAT I CAN SUBMIT THAT TO THE COMMISSION SO THAT I CAN SHOW YOU THAT THAT'S BEEN DONE P WORK WITH A PD? OKAY.

YOU CALL 9 1 1.

WELL, I, I KNOW I CAN, I KNOW HOW TO GET IT.

BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS ONCE I RETRIEVE IT, HOW CAN I GET THAT TO THE COMMISSION? OH, TO THE COMMISSION.

YOU GIVE IT TO US.

IF YOU WANT.

I, I, I'LL, I'LL JUST SAY, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY THAT RELEVANT TO OR, OR PART DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

THAT BEING SAID, UH, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE MOVING IN A COUPLE DIRECTIONS HERE, BUT MY, MY GOAL'S ALWAYS BEEN, CAN WE GET HOUSING BACK ON THE MARKET? RIGHT? WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

AND IF THE OWNER WANTS TO JUMP INTO THAT POOL, THEN, THEN PERHAPS JUST THINKING OUT LOUD WITH YOU GUYS, THAT, THAT, THAT MIGHT BE A DIRECTION TO GO IN, BUT WITH SOME CONSTRAINTS OF TIME TRIGGERS AND FENCING AND SOME OTHER PROACTIVE APPROACHES AND MORE PROACTIVE BY YOUR CLIENT AND THOSE SORT OF THINGS THAT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOUR CLIENT WANTS TO GO, WOULD POSTPONING THIS UNTIL A LATER DATE FOR DECISION LETTING STAFF GET TOGETHER WITH THE OWNER AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES AND COME UP WITH A REAL CONCRETE PLAN WITH TIMELINES AND DATES.

AND, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST KIND OF, I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, WELL, WE'RE ASSUMING IT CAN OR CAN'T BE REPAIRED.

I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S JUST A THOUGHT.

I KNOW IT'S AN OPTION THAT WE IS TO, UH, TO HAVE A CASE RETURNED WHEN IT'S MORE FORM FIRMED UP WITH, HERE'S, HERE'S THE THINGS MY OUR CLIENT'S GONNA DO.

WE'RE GONNA CLEAN UP, WE'RE GONNA FENCE, WE'RE GONNA, I DON'T KNOW.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE AN OPTION IF THIS PERSON REALLY IS SERIOUS ABOUT WANTING TO BRING THIS PROPERTY BACK ON THE, TO BE A HOME TO BE UTILIZED AS OPPOSED TO SCRAPING IT.

COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE THAT WAS, OH, I'M SORRY.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS A QUESTION FOR ME.

IF I, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS, UH, SO MUCH A QUESTION DIRECTED.

UM, WHICH DOES, SPEAKING TO THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD PERHAPS MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING SO THAT WAY WE CAN ACTUALLY GET INTO A, A SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION WITHOUT NEEDING TO PREFACE IT BY QUESTION.

UM, BEFORE WE DO, IT SEEMS JAMES HAS A QUICK COMMENT PERHAPS, UM, OR CITY STAFF DOES, UH, YES.

GO AHEAD AND SPEAK FOR CLARIFICATION.

UM, WE HAVE THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER'S EXHIBIT HERE THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

YES, I DO.

I SHOULD EXHIBIT, UH, ADMIT THAT AS WELL.

UM, AND, UM, AND THERE'S ALSO, UH, WHICH BY THE WAY, THAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE, UH, THROUGH THE GOOGLE DRIVE, UM, FOLDER MM-HMM .

SO, UH, MR. SOAD IS ABLE TO SEE THAT.

FANTASTIC.

UM, SO EVERYONE HAS VIEWED IT, AND IF, IF, IF YOU WILL ADMIT IT, THAT'S PERFECTLY OKAY.

YES, I DO BELIEVE EVERYONE HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT.

UM, SO I WILL ADMIT THE PROPERTY OWNERS EXHIBITS.

UM, AND AT THIS TIME, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC MOTION.

I'M SORRY, ONE OTHER THING.

OH, SORRY.

AGAIN, JUST AS A MATTER OF, UH, RECORD, THERE'S ALSO A, UM, UH, AN INTERESTED, UH, PARTY YES.

EXHIBIT, WHICH, UM, THAT PERSON ACTUALLY DID NOT COME TO THE, UH, MEETING TONIGHT.

SO, UM, WE'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW THAT.

UM, IN THAT CASE, YES, THE INTERESTED PARTY EXHIBIT, UM, HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

IT WAS NOT ADMITTED, SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY PROCEDURAL ISSUES THERE.

UM, THAT BEING SAID, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING? MOVE TO CLOSE THE HEARING.

THAT'S A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.

ANY SECOND? SECOND, COMMISSIONER I BARRA.

SO THAT IS A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BARRA TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.

DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE MOTION THAT PASSES, AND I WOULD WELCOME FURTHER AMENDMENTS.

UH, HEARING NONE, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS OVER, UM, FOR MR. UM, UH, FOR MR. KELLY.

UM, IF YOU ACTUALLY WOULD SAY THERE, UM, WE MAY STILL HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OF YOU.

IT'S JUST THAT THE, UH, PRESENTATION PORTION IS FINISHED.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITHOUT NEEDING TO PREFACE THE DISCUSSION IN THE CONTEXT OF QUESTIONS.

UM, IN LIGHT OF OUR TYPICAL PROCEDURE, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO, AT THIS TIME, MAKE A MOTION TO START, AND THEN WE CAN START DISCUSSION BASED ON THAT.

ARE WE ALLOWED TO ALSO JUST GO INTO DISCUSSION? I KNOW IT'S PREFERRED TO GO MOTION FIRST AND THEN DISCUSSION, BUT I THINK I, I WOULD PREFER A MOTION ON THE TABLE JUST IN, IN TERMS OF ROBERT'S RULES.

THAT BEING SAID, THIS

[02:30:01]

IT'S JUST A STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION.

I I'LL MOVE THEN TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.

SO I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDING OF FACTS, UH, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ENTIRETY.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, COMMISSIONER IBARRA, THAT IS A COMMISSIONER, UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER IBARRA TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.

UM, I WILL START DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSIONER TOM HONOVICH.

YEAH, AND I'M NOT TOTALLY SETTLED IN THIS.

I CAN GO EITHER WAY.

MR. KELLY? I, I JUST WANNA START OFF BY SAYING, I THINK, UM, I WOULD HAVE A PRETTY HARD TIME ACCEPTING A REMODEL HERE UNLESS WE GET SOME ROCK SOLID SECURITY GUARANTEES, WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF TOOLS WE HAVE, WHICH CAN, UM, BE USED TO ENFORCE OR FURTHER PUNISH, UH, SOMEONE WHO'S NOT COMPLIANT OR IS NOT TAKING CARE OF THEIR PROPERTY.

BUT I THINK I WOULD HAVE A, BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE'VE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS, UM, A REALLY, REALLY HARD TIME ACCEPTING REMODEL HERE.

ALTHOUGH I, I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER, THAT IS WHAT I WANT IS THIS HOUSE BACK ON THE MARKET.

BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT TRUST IS ESSENTIALLY GONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

OTHER PROPERTIES WE'VE SEEN.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S A MUCH MORE REASONABLE THING TO DO.

IN THIS CASE, I THINK WE'VE GOT A REAL, REAL ATTRACT.

WE HAVE A, A GENUINE HOMELESS ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE, UM, THAT HAS CAUSED TWO FIRES IN THE LAST YEAR IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

UM, AND SO I THINK THAT'S HOW I'D LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION.

I THINK, UM, UNLESS WE CAN GET SOME ROCK SOLID GUARANTEES OR SOME SORT OF OTHER MECHANISM, I THINK I'D HAVE A HARD TIME GOING, UH, AWAY, AWAY FROM STAFF STUFF BEFORE I RECOGNIZE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

I, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE MYSELF, BECAUSE THE WAY THAT I SEE IT, WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS, RIGHT? UM, FUNDAMENTALLY, UH, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO GO WITH A DEMOLITION ORDER OR A REPAIR ORDER.

AND THE COMPARATIVE BENEFITS OF BOTH ARE THAT ON THE ONE HAND, WE COULD ORDER A DEMOLITION, IN WHICH CASE COMPLIANCE WOULD THEORETICALLY REQUIRE DEMOLITION.

BUT TO MY UNDERSTANDING, A DEMOLITION ORDER COULD ALSO BE, UM, SATISFIED BY BRINGING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.

AND THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL PERIOD BETWEEN WHEN WE ISSUE A DEMOLITION ORDER, WHEN THEY HAVE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DEMOLITION ORDER, AND THEN ULTIMATELY WHEN THE CITY CAN STEP IN TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY.

UM, THE OTHER OPTION IS THAT WE DO WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SAYS AND GIVE THEM A REPAIR ORDER.

AND, UM, ONE THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS NICE ABOUT THE REPAIR ORDER IS, FIRST OF ALL, IT CAN ALSO BE COMPLIED WITH BY DEMOLITION.

UM, THOUGH IT DOES NOT HAVE THE ORDER FOR, UM, THE CITY TO POTENTIALLY STEP IN AT THE END AND GO AHEAD AND DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY, BUT IT DOES HAVE FUNDS.

AND I THINK THAT IS PERHAPS AN IMPORTANT THING TO CONSIDER HERE, BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, ACCORDING TO OUR TCAD RECORDS IN YEAR GOOGLE DRIVES SINCE 2005, I BELIEVE.

UM, AND THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE PROBLEMS THROUGHOUT THAT ENTIRE PERIOD ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE HEARD.

UM, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING INDICATING THAT THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OUTSIDE OF BRINGING AN ATTORNEY TO COME HERE AND TALK TO US NOW, AND TO MAKE EFFORTS ONLY AFTER THE VOTING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION HAS, UM, ISSUED NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND GONE IN TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE.

SO, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THAT, UM, SOMETHING WE SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER IS WHETHER WE WANT TO HAVE FINES ATTACHED TO THIS.

SOMETHING I WILL ALSO MENTION IS THAT IN THE PAST, WE HAVE AMENDED THE ORDERS AS RECOMMENDED TO ALSO REQUIRE THOSE, UM, THINGS THAT WE'VE MENTIONED, LIKE SECURING THE PROPERTY WITH A FENCE AND IMPOSING FINES ON THOSE.

UM, BUT AS, UH, AS SUPERVISOR THOMPSON SAID, IT'S NOT EVEN 100% CLEAR WHETHER A FENCE WOULD BE THE DESIRABLE OPTION.

SO ULTIMATELY, I, I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY BE DISCUSSING HERE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO REMODEL THE PROPERTY, OR WHETHER B THAT'S EVEN THE GENUINE INTENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER BASED ON THE TESTIMONY WE'VE HEARD.

AND REALLY JUST TO, TO FOCUS ON THE FACT THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE A PRETTY SERIOUS DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE MULTIPLE NEIGHBORS COMING HERE COMPLAINING ABOUT, AND FOR SEEMINGLY QUITE GOOD REASON.

IT SEEMS DANGEROUS.

AND HONESTLY, I'M NOT SURE IF YOU COMING HERE TODAY AND, UH, TELLING US THIS IS IN THE INTEREST OF FRANKLY, GETTING THE VOTING AND STANDARDS

[02:35:01]

COMMISSION OFF OF YOUR PRO, UH, OFF OF YOUR CLIENT'S BACK, OR IF IT'S IN THE INTEREST OF FINDING A GENUINE RESOLUTION.

BECAUSE I, I'M ALWAYS GENUINELY REALLY INTERESTED IN FIXING THE PROBLEM, RIGHT? AND FOR ME, THAT EITHER MEANS WE REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY, WE DEMOLISH IT, OR, OR WE FIX IT.

AND I THINK, FRANKLY, THAT THE BEST MOVE MIGHT BE TO EITHER PUT THE DEMOLITION ORDER, BUT WITH A SECURE ORDER ATTACHED TO THAT WITH A FINE, OR WE GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER WHAT THEY WANT, SAY, REPAIR ORDER, AND THEN INSTITUTE ENOUGH FINES THAT WE THINK IS ADEQUATE ASSURANCES THAT THEY WILL ACTUALLY DO.

IT PROMPTLY BE BECAUSE I, I THINK THAT WITHOUT MONEY ATTACHED TO THIS, WHICH I, I THINK IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE DEMOLITION ORDER RIGHT NOW, I, I DON'T THINK THAT IT WILL GET RESOLVED PROMPTLY.

UM, SO WITH THAT, I WILL, AND, AND, AND I ALSO, REGARDING THE, THE, THE SUGGESTION TO CONTINUE THIS, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS NECESSARILY IN ANYBODY'S INTEREST, ASIDE FROM PERHAPS, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

UM, BUT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY PERHAPS A, UH, AN INTEREST WE WOULD LIKE TO INDULGE AT THIS TIME.

UM, BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

UM, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD OPEN IT UP TO ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

UM, COMMISSIONER IBARRA, I KNOW THAT WE ALL KNOW THAT THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT A PRIVATE SECURITY FORCE.

THERE ARE RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITIES THAT COME WITH PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.

I THINK THAT IF THERE'S AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT HAVING CONSTRUCTION CREWS, HAVING WORKMEN ON THE SITE WOULD ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM OF INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS COMING ONTO THE PROPERTY, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE ANY TIME SINCE THESE FIRES STARTED.

UM, I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT IS TRULY TO REMODEL THE PROPERTY.

IF, IF, IF I COULD ASK THAT THE QUOTATION THAT WE SAW EARLIER, IS THAT A QUOTE? IS IT A CONTRACT? AUSTIN FIRE AND FLOOD IS A QUOTE, IT'S NOT A CONTRACT.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS IS BECAUSE I WAS SUPPOSED TO GET ANOTHER ONE FROM COLONIAL CONSTRUCTION AND RE RESTORATION TODAY THAT I COULD PRESENT TO YOU.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS A DELAY IN ME GETTING THAT.

SO MY CLIENT'S LOOKING FOR MULTIPLE QUOTES.

HE'S SERIOUS ABOUT THIS.

HE WOULDN'T BE SPENDING THE TIME TRYING TO GET THESE QUOTES APPLYING FOR A LOAN TO DO THIS.

SO THAT'S A BINDING PROPOSAL BY THAT CONTRACTOR.

WELL, BINDING ON ONE SIDE, IT'S UNILATERAL, IT BIND BOUND BECAUSE AUSTIN FIRE AND FLOOD SAID THEY'LL DO THE WORK FOR THIS PRICE.

IF I CAN CLARIFY, I I HAVE A SECOND QUESTION.

OH, SURE.

FOR, FOR OUR GROUP, HISTORICALLY, WE IMPOSE A FINE OF, WHAT IS IT, $250 A WEEK.

IT, IT'S TYPICALLY $250 PER WEEK FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

CAN WE MAKE IT A THOUSAND A WEEK? AND THEN THE OFFSET THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, IF THIS IS TRULY A $90,000 FIX AND WE IMPOSE A THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK, IT'LL GIVE YOU ALMOST A YEAR TO GET IT DONE.

UH, LET ME ASK TWO QUESTIONS.

UM, FIRST OF ALL, UH, TO DIVISION MANAGER, MORE JUST FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE OFFSET PROGRAM.

I, I COULD HAVE MISHEARD YOU EARLIER AND PERHAPS I, I, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THIS PROGRAM ALL THE TIME, BUT I IS, UM, IS IT AT THE DISCRETION OF CITY STAFF TO OFFER THAT OFFSET, OR IS IT MANDATED? NO, IT'S MANDATED.

WE DO IT.

IT IS MANDATED.

TOTAL NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS, AND THEN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT COULD BE ASSESSED AGAIN FOR EACH VIOLATION WOULD BE $10.

UM, SECOND QUESTION REGARDING, UM, THE THOUSAND DOLLARS PENALTY THAT HAS JUST BEEN DISCUSSED.

UM, WE DO TYPICALLY, UH, ISSUE $250 PENALTIES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UM, UH, SONYA HERRERA IF THE THOUSAND DOLLARS PENALTY, I DON'T, THE, I I, I KNOW THAT THERE'S, UM, RESTRICTIONS AGAINST EXCESSIVE PENALTIES.

UM, BUT IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE HEARD, I DON'T INITIALLY THINK THAT THAT'S EXCESSIVE.

UM, I WONDER IS ANYTHING LEGALLY GOING OFF THAT MIGHT, UM, INDICATE THAT THERE MIGHT BE A HIGHER STANDARD, UM, REGARDING A PENALTY THAT HIGH? YES, MA'AM.

VICE CHAIR.

SO UNDER STATE LAW, THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS.

THERE ARE CAPS ON THE AMOUNT OF A VIOLATION OR THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF A VIOLATION THAT CAN BE PLACED, UM, BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROPERTY IS HOMESTEADED.

SO IF THIS PROPERTY IS HOMESTEADED, THEN WE CANNOT, UM, ASSESS A FEE THAT IS MORE THAN $10 PER DAY FOR EACH VIOLATION.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE

[02:40:01]

NOW, IF THE PROPERTY IS NOT HOMESTEADED, THAT DOES INCREASE TO A MAXIMUM OF $1,000 PER DAY, PER VIOL, PER VIOLATION.

UM, BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE JUSTIFICATION IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO THAT HIGH.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

IF I CAN ASK CITY STAFF, UM, I KNOW WE SOMETIMES DO MENTION WHETHER PROPERTIES ARE HOMESTEADED, AND I'M JUST NOT ACTUALLY SURE IN THE TCAD RECORDS WHERE I COULD FIND THAT INFORMATION.

DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW, UM, WHETHER THIS PROPERTY IS IN FACT HOMESTEADED? IT, IT IS HOMESTEADED.

UM, IT IS HOMESTEADED.

I WAS TRYING TO FIND THE TCA, UM, MADAM CHAIR, IF I, IF I MIGHT JUST INTERJECT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE HOMESTEAD TAX EXEMPTION REQUIRES SOME LEVEL OF LIVING AT THE PROPERTY TO BE MAINTAINED YEAR TO YEAR.

I DON'T THINK IT COULD LEGALLY BE CLAIMED IF THE PERSON DOESN'T LIVE THERE, BUT I'LL REFER TO A DEFER TO, TO LEGAL ON THAT.

MY, THAT'S MY BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE HOMESTEAD TAX EXEMPTION.

I, I, I WOULD PASS THAT TO LEGAL, BUT I, I, I WOULD SAY THAT THAT IS PERHAPS GOING INTO GRAY AREA.

POTENTIALLY CHALLENGE SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTITUTING A HI.

FINE.

WELL, PART OF THE ISSUE IS IF, IF IT IS HOMESTEADED, OR IF WE SEE IT AS IT IS, IF IT IS CURRENTLY NATE LISTED AS HOMESTEADED UNDER TCAD, RIGHT? THERE ARE CERTAIN MECHANISMS BY WHICH WE WOULD CHALLENGE THAT, WHICH WE CAN'T ACTUALLY DO HERE, THIS BODY.

UM, SO IF THE INFORMATION WE HAVE IS THAT IT IS CURRENTLY HOMESTEADED, THEN THAT IS, THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO ACCEPT.

AGAIN, FOR PURPOSES HERE, UM, THERE IS AGAIN, ANOTHER PROCESS TO CHALLENGE THAT, BUT THAT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS BOARD.

UH, THANK YOU FOR OFFERING THAT.

UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, BASED ON OUR RECORD IN OUR PAMPHLETS, I COUNT THAT THERE ARE 11 VIOLATIONS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY CLEARED ACCORDING TO THIS.

NOW, THERE COULD BE OTHERS, UM, BUT THIS IS WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US 11, UM, VIOLATIONS.

AND THAT IS MULTIPLIED BY A MAXIMUM OF 10 PER DAY, MEANS $110 MAXIMUM PER, UH, DAY IN FINES.

AND THAT WOULD MEAN THAT PER WEEK, OUR MAXIMUM IS 770 PER WEEK.

UM, WOULD SEEMINGLY BE BASED ON A HOMESTEADED PROPERTY, THE MAXIMUM WE COULD INSTITUTE ON THIS PROPERTY.

I BELIEVE THAT ALL SOUNDS RIGHT.

UM, AGAIN, I'M JUST COUNTING BASED ON THE, THE UNCLEARED VIOLATIONS IN OUR PAMPHLET.

SO TO MY UNDERSTANDING IN THE CURRENT DISCUSSION, THE MAXIMUM THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE INSTITUTED AS A FINE IS $10 PER VIOLATION.

THAT WOULD BE $770 PER WEEK.

UM, IT'S, IT'S 10 VIOLATIONS.

IS IT WE'RE NOT, YOU DON'T COUNT THE OH, PROPERTY ABATEMENT ONE.

IN THAT CASE.

UM, SO 700 IS A LITTLE OVER 36,000 A YEAR.

THANK YOU FOR THAT.

SO IF IT WAS 70,000 RENOVATION, THEY COULD SIT ON IT FOR TWO YEARS BEFORE THEY'D ACTUALLY REALLY HAVE TO PAY SOMETHING.

SO I THINK THIS IS A, IS A TOUGH CASE BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE GET THEM TO ACTUALLY FIX THE PROPERTY.

UM, COMMISSIONER ICH AND THEN COMMISSIONER FRANCIS, I THINK HIS HAND WAS UP FIRST.

DAY, WE'RE NOT OUT THERE MOWING DOWN THE, THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? IT'S GONNA TAKE MONTHS TO GET, LETTING ASBESTOS SAMPLES TO GET THE CONTRACTORS TO BID IT AND TO GET OUT THERE.

IN THAT CASE, COMMISSIONER FRANCIS AND THEN TOM LOVICH.

NOW COMMISSIONER, I STILL THINK IF, IF, OF COURSE THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE AND WE HEAR YOU CLEARLY MM-HMM .

TO THE ISSUES THAT ARE GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY'RE VERY SYMPATHETIC, BUT SOME OF THESE WHEELS TURN SLOWLY AND TO, NOT TO EXPEDITE THIS, BUT I WOULD AGAIN, KIND OF GO BACK TO WHAT I SPENT A MOMENT AGO.

WE COULD PUNT THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING AND ALLOW THE OWNER AND THE COUNCIL TO GET TOGETHER WITH STAFF AND COME WITH A SOLID PLAN BACK TO US.

AND WE WANT TO SEE MORE PROACTIVE APPROACH BY YOUR CLIENT IF THEY REALLY ARE TRULY INTERESTED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT THEY CLEAN THIS PLACE UP, THAT THEY FENCE IT, THAT THEY BRING IN A SECURITY SERVICE, WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GIVE SOME RELIEF TO THE FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN HAVE THE, THE COMMISSION REEXAMINE THE REMODEL SCENARIO, RIGHT? BUT THAT THE DEMOLISH IS ALSO STILL ON THE TABLE, RIGHT? WE, AT ANY TIME WE CAN MODIFY ANY OF THOSE THINGS AND THEY COME BACK WITH REMODEL, WE'LL SAY, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.

WE'RE GONNA DEMO.

SO THAT GIVES US, BUT IT ALLOWS, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST KIND OF PULLING ITS STRAWS AND DOLLAR AMOUNTS AND IT JUST IS UP THE AIR.

AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING ABOUT IS 30 DAYS TO PUT THIS DOWN THE ROAD, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO STAFF? DOES THAT WORK? I MEAN, WE'RE, WE'RE ASKING FOR 45 DAYS IN THE ORDER.

I MEAN, WE WOULD CONCEDE ANOTHER 45 DAYS, MAKE IT 90.

SO THERE'S YOUR MONTH YOU'RE ASKING FOR, UM, BECAUSE THAT WOULD GIVE 'EM 90 DAYS.

AND THEN WE DON'T, 91ST

[02:45:01]

SO IT'S, UM, TWO TO THREE MONTHS.

SO WE'RE TALKING LIKE ALMOST SIX MONTHS, UH, BEFORE WE'D ACTUALLY DEMO IT.

SO IF THEY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT REPAIRING IT, I WOULD THINK HE, HE SAID SIX MONTHS, THERE'S YOUR SIX MONTHS, AND THEY CAN BEAT US.

AND ONCE THEY GET ACTIVE BUILDING PERMITS, WE'RE NOT GONNA MOVE IN AND DEMO IT.

I MEAN, WE'RE GONNA SIT BACK AND LET 'EM REPAIR IT LIKE THEY SAY THEY'RE GONNA DO.

IF I MIGHT, IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE TO TO, TO COMMISSIONER FRANCIS POINT, WE'RE WARMING UP.

I, I MEAN, ME PERSONALLY, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WOULD WORK, UM, EXACTLY, BUT I WOULD WANNA SEE THEM BACK HERE IN ONE MONTH AND I WANTED TO HEAR FROM Y'ALL AS WELL, AND I WANTED TO HEAR IF THEY'RE SATISFIED WITH THE SECURITY MEASURES.

AND IF THEY ARE, I SAY WE KEEP LETTING 'EM MAYBE RENOVATE, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT, I SAY DEMOLISH, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I, I, I'M, I'M, I WANT TO GIVE THIS PROPERTY OWNER A CHANCE TO COMPLY, BUT ON THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE TIMELINE LEASH, SO MAYBE REDUCING, UH, MAYBE WE MOVE TO REDUCE THE TIME FROM, UH, TO GO THE, I'M, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW THIS WORKS, BUT MAYBE GO THE OTHER DIRECTION WHERE IT'S 30 DAYS AND THEN THE FINES START KICKING IN, OR WE HAVE THE OPTION TO ORDER DEMOLITION, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT COULD ALSO BE EVEN LONGER, UM, BASED ON WHAT I'M JUST HEARING FROM STAFF.

SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S MAYBE ONE POTENTIAL COMPROMISE HERE IS, IS I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THIS PROPERTY BACK AT OUR NEXT MEETING AND GET A REAL PROGRESS SUPPORT.

AND IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE NOT SATISFIED, I SAY WE DEMOLISH, I, IF I CAN IN, IF I CAN INTERJECT, I THINK THAT CERTAINLY THE, THE, THE MOVE THAT I, I WOULD SUPPORT AT THIS POINT IS THAT WE ORDER DEMOLITION.

AND AS DIVISION MANAGER MOORE JUST SAID, IF THEY DO GET THE, IF THEY DO GET THE, UM, PERMITS AND DO MAKE SERIOUS EFFORTS TOWARDS REPAIRING THE PROPERTY, THAT PROBLEM GOES AWAY.

RIGHT? THE DEMOLITION ORDER ISN'T GOING TO ACTUALLY FORCE THEM TO DEMOLISH IF THEY ARE SERIOUS ABOUT REPAIRING THE PROPERTY.

AND SO I I, I THINK THAT THE QUESTION IS FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT'S THE QUICKEST WAY THAT WE CREATE ENFORCEMENT, EITHER THROUGH A PENALTY THAT'S SUBSTANTIVE ENOUGH TO ACTUALLY GET THEM TO MAKE MOTION OR THROUGH THE THREAT OF DEMOLITION THAT WOULD ACTUALLY ALSO GET THEM TO POTENTIALLY RENOVATE THE PROPERTY.

SO, SO PERSONALLY, I, I THINK THAT, UM, JUST IN LIGHT OF THE TIMEFRAME, THAT DIVISION MANAGER MORE JUST LAID OUT, UH, YES, SIX MONTHS, BUT ALSO THAT POTENTIALLY A, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, A FINE WOULDN'T REALLY HAVE MUCH OF AN EFFECT, UH, UNTIL A YEAR ON IF THEY ARE GOING TO REPAIR THE PROPERTY.

UM, THAT, THAT I THINK PERHAPS THE, UM, DEMOLITION ORDER NOW WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.

AND THEN IF AT A LATER TIME, UM, PROPERTY ISSUES CONTINUE, THEY MIGHT END UP IN THE COMMISSION ANYWAY, AT WHICH POINT WE COULD INSTITUTE FINES.

UM, BUT AGAIN, YES, UH, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART, TOTALLY AGREE.

WANNA, OUR MINDFUL FELLOW COMMISSIONERS ARE THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT? IS TO ADOPT STAFF'S ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DEMOLISH SO FROM COMMISSIONER TOVI.

SO I, I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THAT.

I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT MOVE GIVEN STAFF'S INPUT.

SO I URGE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO JOIN ME IN VOTING IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION.

IF, IF I CAN ALSO, UM, SUGGEST WE COULD PERHAPS AMEND THE MOTION TO ALSO REQUIRE, UM, SECURING THE PROPERTY, I THINK THAT THAT MIGHT BE PRUDENT.

UM, AND TO MY UNDERSTANDING, WE COULD ALSO PUT A FINE ON ENFORCEMENT OF THAT.

UM, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS MY, THAT WAS MY VERY NEXT QUESTION, UM, THAT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

UM, I BELIEVE SONYA HERRA HAS A COMMENT FOR US AT THIS TIME.

UH, YES, MADAM CHAIR.

UM, I WILL NEED TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE AS FAR AS THE METHOD OF COMPLIANCE WITH A DEMOLITION ORDER.

UM, WHEN WE ORDER THAT A STRUCTURE BE DEMOLISHED, RIGHT? THE ORDER CLEARLY STATES THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED, UM, USUALLY DOWN TO ITS FOUNDATION OR TO THE SLAB.

WELL, AND, AND WE DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AND WE LEAVE THE LOCK CLEANED AND RIGHT.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE ONLY FORM OF COMPLIANCE IS A DEMOLITION THE REPAIR ORDER RIGHT? IN, IN VICE.

UH, HOWEVER, WITH THE REPAIR ORDER DEMOLITION WOULD BE A METHOD OF COMPLIANCE BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE REMOVING THE STRUCTURE, SO YOU'RE REMOVING ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT STRUCTURE, WHICH IS WHY WE THINK OF DEMOLITIONS AS A FORM OF COMPLIANCE WITH A REPAIR ORDER.

IT'S NOT QUITE THE SAME WITH A DEMOLITION.

AND SO I DO HAVE A CONCERN, UM,

[02:50:01]

THAT IF WE, OR THAT IF YOU ALL ORDER THE, THE DEMOLITION, YOU ALL WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND THAT ORDER IF IT'S GOING TO BE A REPAIR.

SO I DO AT LEAST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION, UM, AS YOU CONSIDER AND WEIGH THE OPTIONS.

UM, SO IT POTENTIALLY CAN BE DONE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO COME BACK, OR THE PROPERTY OWNER'S GONNA HAVE TO REQUEST TO BRING BACK THE CASE, UM, IF THEY, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME COMPLIANCE AND, AND THEY, YOU KNOW, PUT ON A CASE THAT SHOWS, OH, THIS MAYBE SHOULD BE A REPAIR INSTEAD OF A DEMO.

SO I JUST WANTED TO TO, TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.

THAT MAKES SENSE.

IF I CAN OFFER, GO AHEAD.

UM, JUST REAL QUICK A QUESTION.

WOULD THERE BE ANY PROBLEM WITH AMENDING THE MOTION, JUST TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING WITH AMENDING THE MOTION TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR REPAIR TO SATISFY THE ORDER? CURRENTLY WE HAVE A DEMOLITION ORDER.

COULD WE ESSENTIALLY CHANGE THAT ORDER TO SAY DEMOLISH OR REPAIR JUST WITH THE NECESSARY LANGUAGE CHANGES? I, I THINK IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE ACCOMPLISHED.

I THINK WE'D HAVE TO WORD THE ORDER VERY CAREFULLY TO MAKE IT CLEAR AT WHAT POINT WOULD THE DEMOLITION BE TRIGGERED.

SO PERHAPS IT IS AN INITIAL, IT, IT, IT CAN GET A LITTLE STICKY BECAUSE YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY HAVING TWO ACTIONS IN A SINGLE ORDER.

SO YOU'D HAVE THE REPAIR, THEY HAVE A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME IN WHICH TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THAT ORDER, AND THEN POTENTIALLY IT TRIGGERS THE DEMOLITION IF THEY'RE, IF THEY DON'T COMPLY, RIGHT.

OR, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GET THE PERMITS, BUT, BUT IT, IT'S PERHAPS A LITTLE LESS MESSIER IF THERE'S A REPAIR ORDER AND THEN THAT IS BROUGHT BACK.

I KNOW IT, IT, IT DOES INVOLVE EVERYBODY COMING BACK AND THERE BEING ANOTHER HEARING, BUT IT TECHNICALLY IS CLEANER.

BUT, BUT TO BE CLEAR, YOU, WE'VE SAID BEFORE THAT ONE OF THE METHODS OF SATISFYING A REPAIR ORDER IS MM-HMM .

IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN REQUIRE SECURING THE PROPERTY AS A PART OF REPAIR ORDER CORRECT.

AND IMPOSE FINES.

AND THE ONLY OPTION IN A DEMOLITION ORDER IS THE CITY STEPS IN AND TEARS THE PLACE DOWN.

AND THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR.

WE WANT IT SECURED IMMEDIATELY AND WE WANT IT FIXED OR TORN DOWN.

I DON'T CARE.

WHICH, THAT MAKES SENSE.

UM, IF I CAN ASK, UH, UM, SONYA HERRERA ONE MORE TIME, UM, REGARDING THAT CAP ON A HOMESTEAD PROPERTY, UM, FINE.

IF WE WERE TO ISSUE A, UM, AS PART OF THIS, AN ORDER TO SECURE THE PROPERTY, WOULD WE BE RESTRICTED TO NOT EXCEED THAT AMOUNT WITH THE ORDER TO SECURE AS WELL? SO IF, OR COULD THAT BE ADDITIONAL CLIENTS ON TOP? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

I DON'T BELIEVE I READ STATE LAW TO KIND OF GIVE THAT FLEXIBILITY.

I THINK IT IS, WE ARE CAPPED AT $10 PER DAY PER VIOLATION.

UM, AND I THINK WE, WE RISK HAVING THE ORDER BE SUCCESSFULLY CHALLENGED IF WE DEVIATE FROM THAT.

UNDERSTOOD.

UM, IN THAT CASE, IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY, YOU KNOW, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION OR PERHAPS TO MAKE, UH, AN AMENDMENT OFFER TO THE MOTION, UM, THEY'RE WELCOME TO DO SO.

IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED AT THIS TIME, ONE OF THE COMMENT, COMMISSIONER MUSK GROVE, ONE OF THE COMMENT I HAVE IS THAT ONE OF THE NOTIFICATIONS WENT OUT TO A MORTGAGE COMPANY.

I ASSUME THAT MEANS THERE'S A MORTGAGE IN PLACE, SO ALONG WITH A MORTGAGE COMPANY AND AN INSURANCE POLICY, THAT'S WHERE THE MONEY IS GONNA COME FROM TO DO THIS REPAIR WORK.

CORRECT? IS THAT A QUESTION THAT I CAN RESPOND TO? UH, YES.

I BELIEVE IT WAS DIRECTED TOWARDS ME.

AS THE SHORT STACK BY HERE.

I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE.

I, UH, YOU'RE CORRECT.

THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

UH, THAT IT, UH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A MORTGAGE ON THE PROPERTY AND THE INSURANCE PROCEEDS THAT MY CLIENT RECEIVED WEREN'T SUFFICIENT TO, TO DO THIS REPAIR.

THAT'S WHY HE'S LOOKING TO REFINANCE THIS SO THAT HE CAN GET THE PROCEEDS SUFFICIENT TO, TO DO THE WORK.

AND DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? WELL, THAT'S PART OF IT.

AND YOU SAID REFINANCE IS HE, IS A, A REFINANCE PROPOSAL BEEN PRESENTED BACK TO HIM? THAT'S WHAT'S IN YOUR PACKET.

IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW AND READ AS THE,

[02:55:01]

AND THAT'S MY FAULT, BY THE WAY.

I DIDN'T GET THE EXHIBITS FROM MY CLIENT IN TIME TO, SO THERE IS, THERE IS A MORTGAGE PROPOSAL, A REFINANCE PROPOSAL THAT WOULD COVER ALL OF THESE COSTS BASED ON THAT PROPOSAL FROM THE CONTRACTOR? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO IT WOULD REFINANCE THE FIRST, THE, THE MORTGAGES ON THE PROPERTY NOW, AND THEN PROVIDE THE FINANCING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION TO, TO PERFORM THE WORK THAT'S BEEN QUOTED, OBVIOUSLY IN ADDITION TO INSURANCE PROCEEDS.

CORRECT? MY ASSUMPTION IS YES.

SO I DON'T SEE HOW THIS GETS DONE UNLESS HE HAD A REPAIR ORDER.

WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE MATTER AT THIS TIME? I, I JUST SAY THAT I, I WANT, LIKE I WAS SAYING EARLIER, I WANT US TO BE ABLE TO CUT IT IN A MONTH.

IF THEY'RE NOT, IF THEY'RE NOT, IF YOUR CLIENT IS NOT COMPLYING, I JUST, UH, I THINK THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS JUST DEALT WITH ENOUGH.

UM, I THINK WE'RE EXTENDING, UH, MORE GRACE MAYBE THAN WE'RE USED TO ALREADY, UH, FOR A SITUATION LIKE THIS.

AND SO ANY, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO DO ANYTHING LIKE OUR VICE CHAIR, MADAM VICE CHAIR.

I WANT THIS PROBLEM SOLVED.

AND I THINK THE TRUST WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY UNIT IS VERY LOW.

SO WHATEVER ORDER IS GONNA WORK THAT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, WE CAN ASSESS WHETHER THEY'RE ACTING RIGHT AND GO TO DEMOLITION.

UM, IF THEY'RE NOT, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'D BE COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR.

UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE A REPAIR ORDER MIGHT BE THE WAY TO DO THAT, UM, HERE FOR THE NEAR FUTURE.

UM, AND, UH, YEAH, I KNOW THE FINES ARE STILL, THE, THE ECONOMICS OF THE FINES ARE NOT AS STRONG AS WE'D LIKE THEM TO BE.

UM, BUT I THINK THERE'S, IF WE ADD, UH, IF ENFORCEMENT FINES FOR THE SECURITY MEASURES, I THINK THAT CAN PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE.

AND I THINK, UM, HAVING THEM BACK IN FRONT OF US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE UNDER THE ORDER WOULD ALSO ADD THAT INCENTIVE.

IT, IT, IT, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT, UM, MR. RERA SAID EARLIER, UM, THE, THE FINES CANNOT BE LEVIED IN ADDITION TO THE, UM, OH, THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM.

THAT'LL BE THE ONE THAT I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN COME TO.

UH, AND I, I THINK THAT THAT IS PRUDENT FOR US TO, TO FOLLOW JUST IN, IN LIGHT OF, UM, THE RISK OF CHALLENGE.

UM, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I FEEL LIKE WE ARE, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT, SOMEWHAT MOVING AROUND HOW TO BEST ENFORCE THIS, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND THE ORDER.

UM, AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND IT TO IS, UM, LET ME JUST PULL UP WHAT I AM, THE LANGUAGE THAT I'M LOOKING UP.

I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE ORDER SO THAT THE ORDER INSTEAD SAY THAT 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 VOTING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM CITY OF AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46 DAY, IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $700 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTRA SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.

SO I'M OFFERING AN AMENDMENT, UM, TO MAKE IT A, UH, A REPAIR ORDER.

AND I'LL ADMIT I'M FUZZY ON THE ROBERTS RULES HERE.

IS THE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED OR IS THE AMENDMENT, DOES IT HAVE TO BE SECONDED FIRST? UM, MADAM CHAIR, IT MIGHT BE EASIER JUST TO VOTE DOWN THE FIRST AND JUST MAKE A FRESH YEAH, I PREFER TO START FROM SCRATCH.

IT'S MUCH CLEANER THAN TRYING TO AMEND THAT.

IN THAT CASE, UM, LET'S, UH, GO TO THE QUESTION.

UH, I WILL WITHDRAW MY AMENDMENT.

UM, LET'S MOVE TO A WARHOL VOTE ON THE, UH, FIRST MOTION AS IT WAS MADE STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER ABAR.

I AM SORRY.

ARE WE VOTING ON THE MOTION OR, OR REMOVING THE MOTION? SO THIS IS ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH FOR THE DEMOLITION ORDER.

AND I THINK WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS THE DISCUSSION OF THIS TO POTENTIALLY EITHER PASS THIS OR TO VOTE IT DOWN AND POTENTIALLY CONSIDER SOMETHING ELSE.

AND, AND SINCE IT'S MY MOTION, I'LL GO AHEAD AND RECOMMEND, LET'S VOTE MINE DOWN AND LET'S BUILD ONE FROM SCRATCH, AND

[03:00:01]

I THINK IT'LL JUST BE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO BUILD THE ORDER THAT WE WANT, UM, FROM SCRATCH.

IN, IN THAT CASE, GOING BACK THROUGH A, UM, A WAR CALL VOTE, COMMISSIONER IBARRA, NAY, NAY, UH, COMMISSIONER LOCK, WHITE NAY, COMMISSIONER KO NAY, COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH, NAY COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE, NAY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS NAY COMMISSIONER, UH, AND VICE CHAIR, UM, ACTUALLY COMMISSIONER SOAT, NAY COMMISSIONER.

AND, UH, FINALLY I VOTE, UM, UH, NAY AS WELL.

UM, THERE BEING EIGHT NAYS AND NO, A'S, UM, THE MOTION FAILS AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE, UM, TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.

B, CORRECT ALL CITATIONS, ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 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 AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY.

IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, ASSESS A CIVIL PENALTY OF $700 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTRA SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.

UM, DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THIS MOTION? SECOND, FROM COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.

UM, I AM REALIZING I PERHAPS SHOULD HAVE ADDED A REQUIREMENT TO SECURE THE PROPERTY.

UM, AGAIN, THAT CANNOT BE YEAH.

IMPOSED WITH AN ADDITIONAL FINES.

BASED ON OUR, OUR RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF ATTORNEY, I COULD, CAN WE OFFER PERHAPS WELCOME, CAN WE OFFER A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDING SECURING THE PROPERTY? UM, YES.

HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO POTENTIALLY WOULD THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE, THE PROPERTY SECURED WITHIN 30 DAYS.

CAN I DO THAT? YES, HE MAY.

SO LET'S SAY THAT THAT IS, UM, UH, I, I I WILL ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

THERE NEED TO BE A VOTE ON THAT.

UM, THERE, SO DO, DO WE VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED OR VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FIRST AND THEN VOTE ON THE AMENDED MOTION? UH, THAT FAIR MADAM CHAIR? UH, YES.

COMMISSIONER OSA, IF YOU'RE DOING ROBERTS, YOU ACTUALLY, YEAH, YOU SHOULD HAVE A FULL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.

AND THEN IF THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED, THEN YOU VOTE, THEN YOU GO RETURN TO THE MAIN MOTION AND VOTE ON THE MOTION AS ADOPTED.

OR IF THE AMENDMENT FAILS, THEN YOU JUST RETURN TO THE MAIN MOTION.

I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

IN THAT CASE, YOU'VE ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT MM-HMM .

IN THAT CASE, LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON ADDING THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.

SO STARTING WITH WAIT, WAIT, QUICK, SORRY, QUICK QUESTION.

A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT.

CAN WE DO EVEN SHORTER? IS IT, CAN WE DO A WEEK? IS THAT ALLOWED? SO CAN WE DO 10 DAYS? SO TYPICALLY WHAT WE ADVISE IS, IS IT REASONABLE, RIGHT? YES.

ESPECIALLY WHENEVER WE'RE GOING BELOW THE 30 DAY THRESHOLD, UM, SINCE IT'S A SECURE, THAT MIGHT BE MORE REASONABLE THAN, SAY, DOING A REPAIR, FOR EXAMPLE.

UM, BUT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY IT AS BEING REASONABLE IF YOU ARE, AGAIN, GOING BENEATH THAT 30 DAY THRESHOLD.

I GUESS A QUESTION FOR STAFF, HOW DO YOU, HOW DO YOU DEFINE SECURE ? YEAH, I MEAN, P****D OFF IS, IS REALLY THE ONLY OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN ALSO THE CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE AND CALLING AND GETTING ENGAGED WITH YOUR, UH, LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, TO, TO TAKE CARE OF.

WOULD, WOULD YOU DEFINE SECURE AS A FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY? I MEAN, AS SECURE AS IT CAN BE AND BOARDED, BOARDED UP AS, AS WELL.

ANY TIME ANY BOARDS ARE RIPPED OFF OR ANY, BUT AS, AS LONG AS YOUR DEFINITION OF SECURE, IT INCLUDES A PERIMETER FENCE, TEMPORARY PERIMETER FENCE AND ALL EXTERIOR OPENINGS TO THE BUILDING BEING SECURED OR BOARDED UP, THEN THAT SATISFIES MY CONCERN.

AND THAT MAY TAKE COMMISSIONERS, I'M NOT SURE GIVEN THE STATE OF THAT, IF WE PUT A SEVEN DAY WINDOW ON THAT, THEY COULD MAKE THAT HAPPEN ACTUALLY WITH CONTRACTORS.

AND THAT'S A PRETTY SHORT FUSE UNLESS YOU'VE GOT SOME CLOUD OR A FENCING COMPANY, RIGHT? ONE ALONE PROBABLY DOESN'T.

SO I WOULD THINK AT A MINIMUM, THAT'S WHY THE 30 DAY WINDOW IS JUST MORE COMFORTABLE.

BUT IF, IF TWO WEEKS IS PROBABLY DOABLE, BUT ONE WEEK IS PROBABLY NOT DOABLE, THEY COULDN'T SATISFY THAT.

UH, COMMISSIONER IBARRA CLARIFICATION.

UM, WE'RE NOT ASSESSING ANY ADDITIONAL

[03:05:01]

FINES FOR THE SECURING OF THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? UH, YES, BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY AT, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THE, THE STATUTORILY MAXIMUM ALLOWED, UH, FINE OF PRO PROPERTY LIKE THIS.

SO THERE'S NO ACTUAL PENALTY FOR NOT SECURING THE PROPERTY.

NO ADDITIONAL FINE IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

IT'S, ISN'T IT PART OF THE SAME FINE MECHANISM IF ANY PORTION OF OUR ORDER ISN'T RESPECTED, THEN THERE'S A FINE, IT WOULD BE TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF, OF YOUR AMENDMENT INCLUDED, UM, AS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO, TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.

BUT I, I THINK YOUR READING IS ALSO CORRECT THAT THERE IS NO, UH, ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE MECHANISM FOR THAT BEYOND WHAT THERE ALREADY IS FOR THE, UM, REPAIR OF THE PROPERTY.

UM, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? NO, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.

COMMISSIONER TOM MILANOVICH.

UM, YES, CITY STAFF AND I JUST WANT TO ADD, UM, AS FAR AS SECURING THE PROPERTY, UM, AT ONE TIME WHILE, WHILE WE WERE OUT THERE, A GENTLEMAN, UM, SAID THAT THE OWNER MOVED AWAY TO FLORIDA, UM, AND THAT HE WAS GIVEN PERMISSION BY THE OWNER'S SON THAT HE WAS ALLOWED TO BE STAYING ON SITE.

AND SO THAT'S BEEN STORY OF SOME OF THE PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS WAS THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO STAY THERE ON SITE BY THE SON OF THE OWNER.

UM, SO THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER MECHANISM TO SECURE IT, IS TO ENSURE THAT THE OWNER, AGAIN, GETS IN TOUCH WITH A PD TO GET CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICES, NOT ALLOWING HOMELESS PEOPLE TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE THERE.

THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP, UM, TO ENSURE THAT THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T ALLOWED TO STAY, TO STAY THERE AT THAT PROPERTY.

YEAH, I, I JUST WANTED TO WEIGH IN ON, ON THE, THE IDEA OF THE, THE SORT OF THE LACK OF TEETH IN THE SECURE ORDER.

UM, YOU KNOW, I'LL DEFER TO MS. IF THIS IS NOT A, SOMETHING THAT, THAT IS PLAUSIBLE, BUT I, I JUST INTUITIVELY, I CAN'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE COULDN'T HAVE AN ORDER, UH, THAT WERE TO SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE CURE THE SUBSTANTIVE VIOLATIONS, HOWEVER MANY THERE ARE, AND, AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WITHIN 45 DAYS SECURE WITHIN SEVEN OR 14 OR WHAT HAVE YOU, UH, FAILURE YOU TO COMPLY WITH, YOU KNOW, PARAGRAPH A BY THE 46 DAY TRIGGERS, THE 700 PER WEEK FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH, AND THEN, AND THEN LIKE A PARAGRAPH B, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH B UH, TRIGGERS THE, THE SAME PENALTY WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME, SEVEN OR 14 DAYS, RIGHT? SO, SO IT WOULDN'T BE ADDITIONAL, IT WOULD JUST THAT, THAT, THAT FINE, UH, WOULD, WOULD KICK IN, YOU KNOW, UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME WE GAVE THEM TO SECURE THE PROPERTY.

UH, SO I, I, I CAN'T JUST INTUITIVELY I CAN'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T DO THAT, BUT I WOULD DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THAT.

AND THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS.

UM, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

AND ALSO MADAM CHAIR, IF I MIGHT, WE HAVE TO MOVE TO EXTEND OUR TIME.

I WAS ABOUT TO, UM, ADDRESS THAT, UM, IF I CAN FIRST, BECAUSE WE DO IN FACT HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT BEFORE, UM, MOVING TO EXTEND THE TIME AGAIN, THE MOTION AS A, THE AMENDMENT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW IS TO SECURE THE PRO A ADD A REQUIREMENT TO SECURE THE PROPERTY ONTO THE ORDER.

CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A VOTE ON THAT BRIEFLY BEFORE MOVING ON? EXTENDING TIME? UM, COMMISSIONER IBARRA, CAN SOMEONE READ THE AMENDMENT LANGUAGE OR STATE THE FULL AMENDMENT LANGUAGE PLEASE? IF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UH, IF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO TRY AND RESTATE WHAT YOU, YOU HAVE, UH, SAID, UM, OTHERWISE YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO, UH, SECURE THE PROPERTY WITHIN 30 DAYS.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING, DO I HAVE TO DO AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT TO ADD THE RECOMMENDATION? I, I DO BELIEVE, YES.

HOW, HOW ABOUT THIS, IF WE COULD, I CAN AMEND THAT TO FOR 14 DAYS PERHAPS TO THE ATTORNEY ELECT.

UM, PERHAPS JUST, UM, YOU, I THINK YOU COULD WITHDRAW YOUR AMENDMENT SO WE COULD DISCUSS THE ISSUE OF TIMING FIRST AND EXTEND THE TIME AND THEN MOVE TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS THE AMENDMENT SUBSEQUENTLY.

I WITHDRAW MY AMENDMENT.

OKAY, IN THAT CASE.

UM, I WILL MADAM CHAIR, ABOUT POINT OF ORDER, UH, YES, COMMISSIONER SOAT.

POINT OF ORDER.

IF THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN SECONDED, IT CAN'T BE UNILATERALLY WITHDRAWN BY THE AUTHOR.

IT HAS TO BE VOTED.

UH, OKAY, IN THAT CASE, HOW ABOUT WE MOVE TO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

UM, UH, COMMISSIONER IBARRA? YAY.

UH, COMMISSIONER LOCK WRIGHT AYE, UH, COMMISSIONER GILKER? AYE.

COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE? AYE.

AYE, UM, COMMISSIONER SOSTA.

AYE UH, VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

BEING EIGHT AYES, NO NAYS.

THERE

[03:10:01]

UM, THE AMENDMENT PASSES.

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO, UM, UH, EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10 15.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH.

THERE BEING AYE AS WELL.

THE MOTION TO EXTEND IS PASSED.

THE, UH, MEETING WILL NOW END AT 10 15.

A LITTLE TIGHT HERE.

I THOUGHT I WAS DOING WELL, .

UM, DOING GREAT.

UH, IS THERE, SO AGAIN, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE NOW, UM, IS BACK TO THE AMENDED ORDER, WHICH WOULD BE A REPAIR ORDER FEE OF $700 PER WEEK AND AN ORDER TO SECURE.

IS THERE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS TO BE MADE? MADAM CHAIR? UH, COMMISSIONER SOAP.

I MOVE TO AMEND, UH, THE ORDER AS CURRENTLY AMENDED, UH, TO PROVIDE THAT, UH, FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER PROVISION, PARDON ME, WITH THE SECURITY PROVISION WILL RESULT IN, UH, AN ACCELERATION OF THE $700 PENALTY UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME PROVIDED AND FURTHER TO AMEND THAT THE TIME PROVIDED BE.

I'M GONNA GO WITH 14 DAYS, I THINK.

UH, AND SO, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY, THAT'S MY MOTION.

I MOVE TO AMEND.

UH, AS SUCH, SO IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE SECURE PORTION TO NOW READ 14 DAYS AND THAT PENALTIES WILL KICK IN ON THE 15TH DAY IF THE SECURE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN, UH, COMPLIED WITH.

AND THE 46TH DAY, IF THE REPAIR ORDER HAS NOT BEEN, UH, COMPLIED WITH, UH, CORRECT.

I, I I COULD NOT HAVE AND IN FACT DID NOT STATE IT BETTER MYSELF.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I MEANT.

UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AND THAT CAN BE REASONABLY TRANSLATED INTO AN ACTUAL ORDER FOR CITY STAFF.

UM, UNDERSTOOD.

UM, SINCE I AM THE, UH, MAKE OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION, UM, I ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY, UH, MO THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

UM, WE CAN MOVE TO A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.

I BELIEVE WE MISSED A SECOND.

NO, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE SECOND ON, ON THAT PIECE TOO.

UH, ON, ON THE AMENDMENT.

SO YOU ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? YES.

AND NOW IT GOES BEFORE THE BOARD? YES.

I, I I'M SAYING WE, WE VOTE ON, ON THE AMENDMENT, UM, TO, TO ADD IT, THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

AYE UH, COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.

VOTE ON THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD IT TO THE MOTION.

UM, SO AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS NOT ON THE UNDERLYING MO ON THE UNDERLYING ORDER.

IT IS A VOTE TO ADD THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER.

UM, SO AGAIN, A ROLL CALL VOTE.

UH, COMMISSIONER IBARRA.

COMMISSIONER GILKER.

AYE UH, COMMISSIONER STOAT AYE.

AND THE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

THE MOTION IS SO AMENDED.

SO AGAIN, THE ORDER NOW READS ESSENTIALLY THAT THERE IS A, THAT WITHIN 45 DAYS, THE, UM, NECESSARY REPAIRS MUST BE MADE THAT WITHIN 14 DAYS THE PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED AND THAT ON THE 15TH DAY, IF THE SECURE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED, THEN THE FINE OF $700 WILL KICK IN.

AND IF NOT, ON THE 46TH DAY, IF THE REPAIR ORDER HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THEN THE PENALTY OF $700 WILL, UM, $700 PER WEEK WILL KICK IN.

UM, IF THERE'S NO CONFUSION ON THE AMENDMENT, UM, I WILL OPEN UP TO FURTHER DISCUSSION, OTHERWISE WE CAN MOVE ON TO A ROLL CALL.

VOTE ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED.

I PROMISE.

LAST THING I'M GONNA BRING UP.

GO FOR IT.

I KNOW, I KNOW WE, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE CURRENT HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION RULING FROM TAD.

UM, IS THERE, IS IT POSSIBLE TO ADD A CONDITION TO RAISE THE FINE IF THAT HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IS LOST AT ANY POINT DURING OUR ORDER TO INCREASE THE, THE INCENTIVE POSSIBILITY? THAT MAD CHAIR, I WOULD SPEAK AGAINST THAT.

I THINK WE'RE REALLY GETTING IN THE WEEDS ON THAT.

ALL RIGHT.

I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT YEAH, AND, AND I APPLAUD THAT, BUT I, I THINK THAT'S REALLY, TCA JUST SAID THIS IS WHAT IT IS.

RIGHT? OKAY.

FACE VALUE.

DOES THAT SENSE? I WOULD TO OTHERWISE I THINK WE'RE REALLY, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THAT THE HOMEOWNER WOULD ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND SECURE THIS PROPERTY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

, I STILL WANNA SPEAK OUTTA TURN.

UH, AGAIN, I'M GONNA ASK, IS THAT A QUESTION? SURE.

[03:15:01]

UM, I WILL ENCOURAGE HIM IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE TO, TO COMPLY WITH THIS.

UM, IT'S MY ORDERS TO TRY TO GET THE REPAIR VERSUS THE DEMOLITION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS TO DO.

AND I WILL STRONGLY ENCOURAGE HIM TO SECURE THIS WITHIN A WEEK.

BUT AGAIN, AS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMISSION MOBILIZING STAFF TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IS TOUGH.

I, I UNDERSTAND.

CAN WE ASK STAFF IF WE DON'T SEE PROGRESS, PLEASE? BRING THIS BACK.

WE TURN THIS INTO A DEMOLITION ORDER.

COMMISSIONER LOCKHART AYE.

AND WE WILL .

UM, IF THERE IS ANY FURTHER THE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED, I WOULD HEAR IT.

NOW.

IF THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AS AMENDED, I WILL CALL FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE.

COMMISSIONER IBARRA AYE.

COMMISSIONER GILKEY.

COMMISSIONER TOM VIC.

COMMISSIONER SOAT.

AND THE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

THE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSES.

UM, SO AGAIN, THAT MOTION WILL BE, UH, IN THAT ORDER WILL BE SENT TO YOUR CLIENT.

UM, IT'LL BE SENT TO YOUR CLIENT.

I, I DON'T KNOW THE PROCEDURES FOR SENDING IT TO YOU AS WELL.

I, I ASSUME BE IN CONTACT WITH CITY STAFF AND THEY WILL MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET IT AS WELL.

UM, BUT IT SHOULD ALSO BE MAILED, UH, TO THE OWNER.

UM, THAT BEING SAID, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY STAFF ON HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE REMAINING CASES.

WE HAVE CASES FOUR, NINE, AND SIX LEFT TO, UM, ADDRESS TONIGHT.

I'M WONDERING.

AND, AND WE DO HAVE, UH, REPRESENTATIVES, UM, FROM CASE NUMBER NINE HERE, PRESENT TONIGHT.

UM, IN MY HONEST OPINION MM-HMM.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE CAN HEAR ANOTHER CASE IN SEVEN MINUTES, SO YOU'LL HAVE TO VOTE TO EXTEND.

UM, IN THAT CASE, UH, I DON'T, I DON'T, WE HAVE, SORRY.

WE HAVE TWO CASES TONIGHT WHERE, UH, WE HAVE REPRESENTATION HERE, RIGHT? SO, UM, AGAIN, IF YOU'D LIKE TO TRY TO TACKLE BOTH, I BELIEVE YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO EXTEND THE MEETING.

UM, I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.

UM, I DON'T THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK I CAN, I CAN FORCE Y'ALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

UM, I AM GOING TO, UH, MOVE TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10 30.

AGAIN, THIS IS UP FOR A VOTE, SO JUST CONSIDER THAT.

UM, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MOSCOW.

NAY, NAY.

THAT IS, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER, SO I DON'T THINK I CAUGHT WHETHER YOURS WAS AN I OR NAY.

IT'S TOO DARK.

SORRY.

CAN'T SEE.

I IT WAS AN I, I, YEAH.

SORRY.

I'M HAVING AUDIO ISSUES.

THAT IS SIX I'S AND TWO NAYS, I BELIEVE, A'S I BELIEVE.

UM, SO THAT WOULD MEAN THAT WE WILL EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10 30, UM, AND WE CAN ADDRESS AT LEAST ONE MORE OF THESE CASES.

UH, AND THE NEXT ONE WE WILL TAKE IS EIGHT.

UNLESS THERE'S A REASON WE SHOULD GO FOR NINE FIRST, UH, NO, WE CAN, UH, CALL NUMBER EIGHT.

GO TO CASE NUMBER EIGHT AND I'LL TRY TO BE QUICK.

LET'S

[8. Case Number: CL 2023-039406]

ITEM NUMBER EIGHT ON THE AGENDA IS A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY LOCATED AT, UH, 12, EXCUSE ME, 2 5 0 3 EAST TRF STREET.

THE CASE NUMBER IS CL 2 2 3 0 3 9 406.

THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER FOR REPAIR FOR THIS PROPERTY AT ITS MAY, 2023.

REGULAR MEETING.

THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS ACHIEVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER AND NOW WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING RELIEF OF THE ACCRUED PENALTIES.

ALL PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS AND NEW EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE TEAL GREEN BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE.

[03:20:01]

THE PROPERTY IS REGISTERED WITH THE CITY'S REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM.

AN ORDER WAS ISSUED IN THE CASE FOR REPAIR WITHIN 45 DAYS, WITH A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK, BEGINNING ON THE 46TH DAY OF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ACHIEVED.

THE TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY AS OF TODAY'S DATE IS $48,192 AND 56 CENTS, WHICH INCLUDES ACCRUED INTEREST ACCRUED FROM THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE DATE OF TODAY'S MEETING.

THIS HAS BEEN A HIGH COMPLEXITY CASE FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

IN YOUR READER AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING ALL PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS, INCLUDING THE CITY'S EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO, A THROUGH TWO J AND EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH CONSISTS OF AN UPDATED COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY.

A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, UM, MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, NOTICES FOR DENIED HEARING, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS, THE RECORDED BSC ORDER ISSUED MAY 24TH, 2020 5, 20 23, AND CORRESPONDING PENALTY STATEMENT AND EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS IN THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION CODE.

INSPECTOR JASON ORTIZ IS HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THE CORRECTED VIOLATIONS AND TIMELINE FOR COMPLIANCE.

AND WE'LL PRESENT, UH, SOME COMPLIANCE PHOTOS.

INSPECTOR ORTIZ, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.

UH, MY NAME IS JASON ORTIZ AND I AM THE INSPECTOR ASSIGNED TO PRESENT THIS CASE.

UH, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS A COMMERCIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX LOCATED AT 25 0 3 EAST STREET.

THE CASE ORIGINATED IN DECEMBER, UH, FIFTH OF 2022 DUE TO A CODE COMPLAINT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO 3 1 1 AND ORIGINALLY INSPECTED BY OFFICER UH, JOHNNY CERNA.

THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED TO THE BSE BACK IN MAY, UH, WHEN THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS ISSUED.

THE PROPERTY CAME INTO COMPLIANCE, UH, FOR THIS CASE IN MAY, UH, MAY 21ST, 2024, UH, WHEN THE MECHANICAL PERMITS, UH, RECEIVED THEIR FINAL INSPECTION.

UH, I WILL NOW PRESENT PHOTOS OF THE VIOLATIONS.

UH, THIS PHOTO HERE SHOWS, UH, THE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT ON THE, UH, AC CONDENSER NOT PROPERLY CONNECTED TO THE UNIT.

NEXT PHOTO.

UH, THE SAME THING HERE, JUST SHOWING A CLOSEUP OF THE SAME ISSUE.

UH, SAME THING HERE, JUST SHOWING THE CONDUIT NOT CONNECTED, ADDITIONAL CONDUITS NOT BEING CONNECTED TO THE UNIT.

UH, THIS IS EXPOSED, UH, ELECTRICAL AND, UH, THE CONDUIT.

UH, THESE ARE THE COMPLIANCE PHOTOS FROM THE MOST RECENT INSPECTION.

UH, THOSE ARE CONTEXTUAL PHOTOS OF THE PROPERTY AND OF THE BUILDING.

BUILDING 12 IS IN QUESTION.

UH, THESE ARE SHOWING THAT THE AC UNITS ARE PROPERLY CONNECTED NOW AND NO EXPOSED WIRING.

SAME THING HERE.

ADDITIONAL PHOTOS OF THE UNITS PROPERLY CONNECTED.

SAME THING HERE.

AND ADDITIONAL PHOTOS OF, UH, ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT ARE PROPERLY CONNECTED.

UH, ADDITIONAL UNITS HERE.

AND THE SAME THING ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THIS IS THE OPPOSITE ANGLE OF THOSE SAME UNITS FROM THE LAST PHOTO.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE PHOTOS.

AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS IN EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF PRE AND POST COMPLIANCE PHOTOS.

STAFF ALSO REQUESTED THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING.

NUMBER ONE, AFFIRM THE CIVIL PENALTY OF $48,192 AND 56 CENTS ASSESSED FROM THE ORDER ISSUED MAY 24TH, 2023, AND RECORDED AS TRV 20 23 0 6 1 7 6 7, OR IN THE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TWO.

IF THE CIVIL PENALTY AMOUNT OF $48,192 56 CENTS 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 NUMBER THREE, ON THE 31ST DAY FROM THE, FROM ON THE 31ST DAY 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 PENALTY AMOUNT OF $48,192 AND 56 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 PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME.

I WOULD PASS IT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE, UM, IN THIS CASE.

IS THAT, UM, KATE GANGLER? I'M WITH, UH, I'M LEAH BOJO.

[03:25:01]

LEAH BOJO WITH TRAINER GROUP.

UM, THANK YOU.

UH, IN THAT CASE, UM, I'LL FIRST ASK YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY, UH, CROSS-EXAMINATION YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FOR THE CITY.

UM, HEARING NONE IF YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE INTO A AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION, AND I THINK WE HAVE, UM, EXHIBITS, UH, FROM YOU TO BE EXHIBITED.

WE DID SUBMIT A PRESENTATION.

HI, I'M LEAH BOJO WITH DUNNER GROUP HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.

UM, WE DID SUBMIT AN, A PRESENTATION, A SHORT PRESENTATION.

UM, DO I HAVE A CLICKER? OH, UH, OR DO I JUST MOVE? PERFECT.

OH, OKAY.

SO THIS IS, THESE ARE THE TRIO APARTMENTS.

UM, AND WHOOPS.

UH, SO HERE'S JUST SOME, SOME PHOTOS OF, OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE, SOME NICE PHOTOS OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE TODAY.

UM, HERE IS A MAP JUST TO SHOW YOU.

THERE'S THREE, THREE SORT OF TRACKS OF LAND IN THREE BUILDINGS.

UM, ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS HAPPENED IN BUILDING 12.

ONE SMALL PORTION OF THE, OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

UM, WE ARE ASKING FOR PENALTY RELIEF.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TONIGHT.

UM, I WANNA POINT OUT TO YOU, AND I THINK I'VE POINTED THIS OUT BEFORE, THIS IS A, UM, THIS IS A VERY LOW, THIS IS MARKET RATE, VERY LOW INCOME, UM, HOUSING.

UM, IT'S BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR, OR IT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR QUITE A LONG TIME.

UM, AND THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DOES THEIR BEST TO REALLY TRY TO KEEP UP WITH REPAIRS.

AS I'M SURE Y'ALL KNOW, WE HEAR, UM, I WORK ON ENTITLEMENTS A LOT AS WELL.

WE HEAR FROM CITY COUNCIL, PLEASE TRY TO KEEP MARKET RATE UNITS ON THE MARKET, YOU KNOW, LOWER INCOME MARKET RATE UNITS ON THE MARKET SO THAT PEOPLE CAN, CAN NOT JUST HAVE TO DEPEND ON SUBSIDIZED UNITS, BUT IT IS A LOT OF WORK.

UM, IT'S A LOT OF COSTS AND A LOT OF CONSTANT REPAIR TO KEEP SOME OF THESE, UM, OLDER DEVELOPMENTS GOING.

SO THIS IS WHAT THIS PROPERTY, UM, OWNER AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WORK THROUGH HERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE, THE AVERAGE RENTS ARE AROUND 41 TO 45%.

MFI, WHICH AGAIN, FOR MARKET RATE IS QUITE, UH, LOW.

UM, SO THERE ARE EIGHT TOTAL VIOLATIONS.

THE FIRST FOUR OF THEM THAT YOU SEE LISTED HERE, UM, WERE THE VIOLATIONS, I BELIEVE THAT WERE, THAT WERE DESCRIBED BY THE OFFICER, UM, MOSTLY HAVING TO DO WITH, UM, THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS.

THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN COMPLETED.

THEY WERE ALL COMPLETED, UM, IN THE LATTER PART OF 2023, UM, EXCEPT FOR THE, THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM THERE, WHICH WAS, UM, COMPLETED IN MAY OF 2024.

UM, AND THEN THE OTHER FOUR ARE ACTUALLY JUST PERMITTING VIOLATIONS.

I DON'T MEAN TO SAY JUST, BUT THEY WEREN'T ACTUALLY INFRASTRUCTURE.

UM, IT WAS WORK THAT HAD BEEN DONE, BUT HAD BEEN, BEEN PROP PERMITTED IMPROPERLY SO THAT, UM, A PROPERTY OWNER HAD TO GO BACK AND COLLECT, UM, THE PROPER PERMITS AND GET THAT WORK, UM, LEGALLY, UM, DONE.

UM, AND I ALSO WANNA POINT OUT THAT THE VERY LAST FINE THERE, UM, THE PLUMBING PERMIT, UM, ACTUALLY PASSED FINAL INSPECTION ON 5 31 23, WHICH IS BEFORE THE DATE, UM, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ISSUANCE OF FINES.

BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THAT AND REPORT IT IN TIME.

UM, THERE WERE SOME SORT OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ISSUES, WHICH OF COURSE ARE, ARE OUR FAULT, NOT Y'ALL'S.

UM, BUT THERE WERE SOME, THERE WAS SOME TURNOVER WITH STAFF, WHICH LED TO SOME, SOME POOR COMMUNICATION ABOUT THESE FINES.

UM, AND ABOUT THE, THIS WORK BEING DONE.

BUT YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS TIMELINE, UM, IN PARTICULAR, UM, WHEN, OOPS, I'M SO SORRY.

WHEN THE, UM, CURRENT AND NEW PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PROPERTY MANAGER CAME ON BOARD, UM, IS WHEN REALLY, AND THAT'S THE PERSON WHO IS STILL THERE TODAY.

THAT IS WHEN THE FINES OR THE WORK REALLY STARTED GETTING CLEANED UP AND EVERYTHING WAS BEING REPORTED PROPERLY.

AND KIND OF ALL OF THIS GOT CLEANED UP.

AND THAT WAS A, AND THAT WAS QUITE A LITTLE WHILE AGO.

THAT WAS, I THINK, LAST YEAR.

UM, AND SO HERE'S JUST SOME PICTURES.

I THINK THE, THE PHOTOS YOU SAW FROM THE OFFICERS WERE ACTUALLY BETTER.

UM, HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE COMPLETED PERMITS, THE, THE FOUR THINGS THAT WERE JUST PROPER PERMITTING, NOT NECESSARILY WORK.

UM, AND WITH THAT, WE WOULD REQUEST SOME PENALTY RELIEF HERE.

UM, THE $48,000 IS A SIGNIFICANT COST TO A PROPERTY THAT'S RUNNING ON THE MARGINS, UM, THAT THIS KIND OF PROPERTY IS RUNNING ON.

AND SO WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE YOUR, UM, YOUR RELIEF NOW THAT WE'RE THROUGH ALL OF THAT WORK AND EVERYTHING IS COMPLETE.

AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY MS. BOJO.

AT THIS TIME, IF CITY STAFF HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER OR, UH, ANY PROPERTY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OR WOULD LIKE A SUMMATION, YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO SO.

IF NOT, THEN THAT IS ALSO FINE.

NO QUESTIONS AND NO SUMMATION, UH, IN THAT CASE.

UM, EH, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, UM, TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THEY HAVE AT THIS TIME.

AGAIN, FOR THE NEWER COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS A PENALTY RELIEF CASE.

THERE'S ALREADY A PENALTY THAT'S BEEN OCCLUDED.

THEY'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF OF SOME OR ALL OF THAT PENALTY.

UM, SO YEAH, IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, FEEL FREE TO ASK THEM.

UH, COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH.

I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT NUMBER.

DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE ON HOW MUCH, UM, IT COSTS TO DO THOSE REPAIRS?

[03:30:01]

I'M SORRY.

OKAY, NO WORRIES.

DOES THE OFFSET APPLY HERE? UM, IT'S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE OFFSET WOULD NOT APPLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? WE JUST CAN'T DO IT IN HOUSE.

WE NEED YOU GUYS TO DO IT, RIGHT? YES, YES.

SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE, UH, THE ONLY PROPER, UH, MEANS OF DOING KIND OF AN OFFSET.

GOT IT.

UM, BUT WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY SPENT.

UM, CAN, CAN I ASK, UH, DIVISION MANAGER MORE, UH, OR, OR ANY CITY STAFF? UM, DO YOU OFTEN KNOW IF THIS IS CHARACTERIZED AS THE LOW, MIDDLE OR HIGH COMPLEXITY CASE? WE'VE CHARACTERIZED IT AS LOW COMPLEXITY, LOW COMPLEXITY.

UM, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION TO, AGAIN, OUR, OUR NEWER MEMBERS, WE HAVE A ACCOUNTING ESTIMATE FOR HOW MUCH, UH, THESE CASES COST THE CITY.

UM, THAT LOW COMPLEXITY ESTIMATE, IF YOU LOOK IN THE ACCOUNTING ESTIMATE ADDENDUM INDICATES, UH, TOTAL COST, INCLUDING INDIRECT COST OF, UH, AROUND $5,465 AND 8 CENTS FOR THE CITY TO, UM, TO, UH, MANAGE THIS CASE.

UM, IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? HEARING NONE, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.

SO MOVED.

THAT IS A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? THAT'S A SECOND.

FROM COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH.

THERE BEING A MOTION AND A SECOND WE WILL MOVE TO A VOTE.

UM, ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY.

HEARING EIGHT AYES AND NO NAYS, THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING IS CLOSED.

MS. BOJO, IF YOU DON'T MIND SAYING, JUST FOR A COUPLE MINUTES WHILE WE, UM, TALK THIS OUT.

I WOULD AT THIS TIME WELCOME A MOTION.

I WANNA REMIND MY COLLEAGUES THIS IS A REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM PROPERTY.

SO THEY'VE BEEN HERE MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE TIMES.

SOUNDS LIKE, UM, IT'S TIME TO MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.

UM, SORRY.

DID, DID, WAS THERE A SECOND? YES.

DID I HEAR THAT? UH, FROM COMMISSIONER MUSCO.

UM, SO TO BE CLEAR, THAT IS A, A MOTION TO AFFIRM THE ENTIRETY OF THE CIVIL PENALTY AND TO NOT REDUCE IT.

IS THAT CORRECT? UH, THAT'S WHERE WE CAN START, YEAH.

UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER KAM HONOVICH.

I WOULD JUST SAY, FRANCIS, YOU'VE GOT THIS KIND OF STUFF DIALED IN, SO I'M REALLY HAPPY TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON WHERE WE THINK YOU THINK WE SHOULD END UP ON THESE KINDS OF THINGS.

I THINK YOU'RE, UH, YOU, YOU'VE DONE MORE RESEARCH ON THESE KINDS OF COMPLEX CASES WITH THESE COMMERCIAL, UH, ACTORS BETTER, MORE THAN ALL OF US.

SO I'M REALLY EAGER TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS.

WELL, I'M GONNA SUPPORT YOUR MOTION.

THAT'S MY POSITION.

WELL, CONSIDERING IN THE PAST, I THINK YOU'RE, YOU TEND TO, YOU, YOU REALLY WANT TO GET COOPERATION OUT OF FOLKS.

I, I TAKE THAT TO MEAN THAT THIS IS A, THIS REPEAT OFFENDER, UH, IS PRETTY, PRETTY SERIOUS.

SO THEN, UH, I WON'T AMEND, UH, AND I'LL, I'LL KEEP IT AT THAT LEVEL.

UH, COMMISSIONER IBARRA, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

GIVEN THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS AN EITHER OR, UM, WHAT, UH, YES.

I, I I BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, IIII, I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER TOVI IN MAKING THAT MOTION WAS, UM, TAKING THE EITHER, UM, OF, OF THAT, THE AFFIRM THE CIVIL PENALTY.

UH, BUT COULD YOU, COULD YOU CLARIFY JUST FOR THE, THE COMMISSION? YES.

I WAS, UH, TAKING THE EITHER OPTION THERE.

MY BAD.

SO THAT WOULD BE TO AFFIRM THE ENTIRETY OF THE CIVIL PENALTY AND NOT REDUCE IT, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

UM, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE.

I WILL MOVE TO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

UM, COMMISSIONER IBARRA AYE.

COMMISSIONER LAQUA AYE.

COMMISSIONER GELKER AYE.

COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE? AYE.

COMMISSIONER STTA AYE.

AND VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

THE MOTION IS PASSED AND THE ORDER, UM, AS RECOMMENDED IS PASSED AND WILL BE SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

HAVE TIME TO GET THROUGH IT IN SIX MINUTES.

UM, WE CURRENTLY HAVE SIX MINUTES LEFT ON THE CLOCK.

UM, THERE IS ONE OTHER CASE WITH, UH, THE PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTED.

UM, I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE

[03:35:01]

UM, IF I CAN MOVE TO EXTEND THE MEETING TO 10 40.

AGAIN, IT IS A, IT IS A VOTE.

UM, IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.

ON TO CASE NUMBER NINE, UM, IN THE INTERESTS OF THE TIME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE, UH, HERE.

NAY.

THAT IS A NAY FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER IBARRA.

SHE WAITED, SORRY.

COMMISSIONER LOCKETT, DID YOU ALSO VOTE NAY OR OKAY IN THAT CASE? SEVEN AYES, ONE NAY.

UM, THEREFORE THE MOTION PASSES.

WE WILL MOVE, UM, TO, UH, THE, UH, COMMISSION WILL NOW GET OUT AT 10:40 PM UM, AND I BELIEVE WE'LL MOVE

[9. Case Number: CV 2021-030049]

ITEM NUMBER NINE, WE WILL, UH, JUST GO RIGHT INTO IT.

ITEM NUMBER NINE ON THE AGENDA IS AN APPEAL REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 4 0 7 GUNNISON PASS.

THE CASE NUMBER IS CV 2 2 1 0 3 0 0 4 9.

THE CASE CAN BE FOUND IN THE BLUE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.

THIS CASE BEGAN AS A COMPLAINT ABOUT RENOVATIONS AT THE PROPERTY WITHOUT PERMITS.

UPON FURTHER INSPECTION, A PLAN REVIEW WAS INITIATED, BUT WITHDRAWN AND A SECOND PLAN REVIEW WAS INITIATED AND IS NOW EXPIRED.

THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT TO THE CURRENT OWNER, THE CURRENT, THE OWNER FILED AN APPEAL OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO ADDRESS THE APPEAL OF THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.

THE INITIAL COMPLAINT CAME IN, UH, THE INITIAL COMPLAINT DATE IS FEBRUARY 22ND, 2021.

THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION INCLUDED ONE STRUCTURE MAINTENANCE VIOLATION, WHICH TO DATE HAS NOT BEEN CLEARED.

IN YOUR READERS IN GOLD DRIVE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING STAFF, EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO.

EXHIBIT ONE CONTAINS THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER'S APPEAL LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 13TH, 2025, THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD CON AFFIRMING OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION DATED FEBRUARY 3RD, 2025, AND, UH, NOTICES FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, PROOFS AND MAILING IN THE POSTINGS.

AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBIT TWO A THROUGH TWO E AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

RECOMMENDATION CODE INSPECTOR AARON ROBINSON IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE CITY'S CASE AND WILL TESTIFY TO THE SPECIFICS LEADING TO THE APPEAL.

INSPECTOR ROBINSON, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.

I DON'T HAVE ANY PHOTOS FOR ITEM NINE.

MY NAME IS ERIN ROBINSON.

I AM A DSD CODE COMPLIANCE INSPECTOR FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN.

THE CASE I'M PRESENTING WILL BE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT WAS BUILT IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IN A FLOOD HAZARD AREA WITHOUT THE REQUIRED PERMITS.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS.

ON MARCH THE SECOND OF 2021, AUSTIN COLE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ABOUT A BUILDING BEING ERECTED IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

UPON ARRIVAL, I WAS MET BY THE OWNER WHO LED ME TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, WHERE I OBSERVED A LARGE SHED UNDER CONSTRUCTION INSIDE THE SHED.

I NOTICED A AIR CONDITIONER UNIT ALONG WITH MULTIPLE ELECTRICAL OUTLETS AND LIGHTS THAT HAD BEEN INSTALLED.

UPON FURTHER INSPECTION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AMANDA DATABASE, I FOUND NO PERMITS HAD BEEN ISSUED FOR THE OVER 200 SQUARE FOOTAGE STRUCTURED OR ELECTRICAL OR MECHANICAL WORK THAT WAS PERFORMED ON NOVEMBER THE 21ST OF 2024.

I AM WATERSHED PROTECTION FLOOD REVIEWER, SHAIR DORSEY MET WITH NOW OWNER TOM, I MEAN TAM GORDON AT THE PROPERTY WHERE MR. DORSEY TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO MR. GORDON THAT HIS PROPERTY WAS IN THE FLOOD HAZARD AREA AND WOULD NEED A PERMIT IN ORDER TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

I WILL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS.

[03:40:02]

UH, I'VE GOT IT.

WE HAVE SOME IN OUR, IN OUR PAMPHLETS.

IS, UH, IS THAT NOT AVAILABLE ON, UH, ON Y'ALL'S END? I'M NOT SEEING IT IN MY FOLDER CURRENTLY, BUT I WILL GIVE IT ANOTHER, I'LL SEE IF I CAN FIND ANOTHER WAY.

UH, WOULD IT BE SUFFICIENT IF YOU WENT THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION ON A COMPUTER UP THERE AND WE FOLLOW ALONG ON OUR IPADS? MY ONLY CONCERN IS DOES COMMISSIONER ST.

OSTAD HAVE ACCESS? UM, IT, IT IS ON THE, THE GOOGLE DRAWING.

OH, IT'S ON, IT'S ON OUR END.

SO I, UH, COMMISSIONER, SO OH, IS OKAY.

YOU WILL FIND AN UP CLOSE PHOTO OF THE SHED AT THE BACK OF 74 0 4 GUNNISON PASS IPMC 3 0 1 4 STATES ACTIVITY CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES WITHOUT THE APPROPRIATE PERMIT.

UH, PHOTO TWO B, YOU WILL FIND AN CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT SIDE OF THE SHED AND THE FENCE.

IPMC 25 12 2 4 1 STATES RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION PERFORMED WITHOUT REQUIRED PERMIT.

PHOTO TWO C, YOU WILL FIND AN UP CLOSE PHOTO OF THE REAR OF THE SHED AND THE FENCE.

AND, UH, 2D YOU WILL FIND THE INSIDE OF THE SHED WITH A PORTABLE AC UNIT AND AN ELECTRICAL PORT.

AND WE HAVE A PHOTO TWO E.

YOU WILL FIND A PHOTO FROM FLOOD PRO PROVING THAT 74 0 4 GUNNISON PASS IS IN THE FLOOD PLAIN.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION OF 74 0 4 GUNNISON PASS.

I AM NOW OPEN FOR QUESTIONS, UH, BEFORE CONCLUDING.

WE'D LIKE TO ALSO, UH, RECOGNIZE, UH, SHAMIR DORSEY.

UH, YES, WE CAN INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF THE, UH, CITY'S PRESENTATION.

UM, SHAMIA DORSEY, IF YOU'RE ONLINE, UM, IF YOU COULD UNMUTE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED.

HELLO.

THANK YOU ALL.

UM, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ALONG, UNLESS I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME.

UM, OR YOU WANT, WANT ME TO EXPLAIN THE REGULATIONS? I CAN DO US DO THAT AS WELL.

UM, WE CAN, WE, WE MAY RETURN TO YOU, UM, IF AT THIS TIME, UM, I BELIEVE I'LL PASS BACK TO PLEASE LET ME, UH, YES.

LET ME JUST CONCLUDE WITH, UM, STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO E, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

RECOMMENDATION STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE, AND DENY THE APPEAL, THEREBY UPHOLDING THE DEFICIENCY WITHIN THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, UH, INSPECTOR ROBINSON.

UM, AT THIS TIME, I, I WOULD PASS IT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.

UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, YOU MAY ASK ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF THE, UH, CITY STAFF.

AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, YOU MAY MOVE INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION IMMEDIATELY.

NO, NO QUESTIONS.

DID YOU ADMIT THE EXHIBITS? OH, UM, YES, I SHOULD.

SORRY, REAL QUICK.

UM, I WILL ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO E THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER.

UM, AND, UH, IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

SO, UH, YOU ARE WELCOME TO MOVE INTO YOUR AFFIRMATIVE PRESENTATION.

UH, SURE.

[03:45:01]

UH, GOOD, GOOD EVENING COMMISSION AND THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.

MY NAME IS GORDON TAM, AND MY WIFE AND I ARE CURRENT OWNERS OF THE HOME.

7 4 0 4 GUNNISON PASS.

WE'VE PURCHASED OUR PROPERTY IN SEPTEMBER OF 2022 AS FIRST TIME HOMEOWNERS.

UM, LET'S SEE.

THIS WORKS, UH, SHOULD BE, UM, SHOWN ON THE DEED HERE.

AND I PULL FROM THE CITY.

PURCHASED A HOME IN SEPTEMBER, 2022 AS FIRST TIME OWNER HOMEOWNERS.

DURING A TIME WHEN AUSTIN HOME PRICES WERE AT HISTORIC HIGHS, WE PAID A PREMIUM FOR THE HOME, TRUSTING THAT EVERYTHING INCLUDING EXTERIOR STRUCTURES WAS PERMITTED AND AND COMPLIANT.

ONLY LATER DID WE LEARN THAT THE EXTERIOR STRUCTURES WERE BUILT IN 2021.

TWO OWNERS BEFORE US AND THE CITY'S OWN CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME AS SHOWN IN THE PHOTO EVIDENCE AND CITY CORRESPONDENCE.

YET NO ENFORCEMENT ACTION WAS TAKEN DURING OR AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION.

THE OVERSIGHT HAS NOW UNFAIRLY TRANSFERRED RESPONSIBILITY AND COST TO US, DESPITE HAVING US, DESPITE US HAVING NO ROLE IN THE ORIGINAL WORK.

OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE'VE MADE EFFORT TO COMPLY.

I'VE HIRED LICENSED CONTRACTORS, SPENT OUT-OF-POCKET FUNDS, AND ENGAGED IN LENGTH COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CITY TO CLARIFY HOW THESE STRUCTURES ARE DEFINED, SHOWN IN THE EMAIL CHAIN, UH, EARLIER, UH, PREVIOUSLY ABOVE THE, THE DEED INFORMATION ONLY TO FACE INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATIONS AND NEW VIOLATIONS.

FINDINGS SUCH AS BEING CITED FOR A WOOD FENCE THAT MATCHES EVERY OTHER PROPERTY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

AS A HOMEOWNER ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, I FIND THIS DEEPLY DISCOURAGING.

I EXPRESSLY ASK THAT THE CITY OFFER A CLEAR AND REASONABLE PATH FORWARD, ALLOW US TO RETAIN AND PERMIT THE EXISTING STRUCTURES AS IS, RATHER THAN REQUIRE COSTLY DEMOLITION OR CONSTRUCTION OF WORK DONE BY PREVIOUS OWNERS UNDER THE CITY'S WATCH.

WE WANT TO RESOLVE THIS RESPONSIBILITY AND MOVE FORWARD.

I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

UM, IF AT THIS TIME THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ANY SUMMATION, UM, YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO SO.

IT DOES NOT APPEAR.

SO, IN WHICH CASE, I WILL MOVE TO MY, UH, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE.

REMINDER, WE HAVE BELIEVE FOUR MINUTES.

UM, SO, UH, IF WE MAY NEED TO ASK MORE TIME, UH, , I APOLOGIZE SINCERELY, ANY QUESTIONS? I, I GUESS JUST FOR STAFF, I MEAN, SO RIGHT NOW THE STRUCTURE AS IS YOUR, YOUR ASSESSMENT IS THAT IT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE RIGHT NOW TODAY? YES, SIR.

AND IS, I MEAN THE, THE REPAIRS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED, 'CAUSE I KNOW IT'S A FLOOD ZONE AND YOU SAID THEY, THEY DIDN'T GET THE PROPER ELECTRICAL WIRING AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

I MEAN, HOW SUBSTANTIAL ARE THE REPAIRS THAT NEED TO BRING THIS UP TO CODE? LIKE, UH, ARE WE TALKING BIG JOB? ARE WE TALKING SMALL JOB? I MEAN, REGARDLESS, THE BUILDING IS ILLEGAL.

IF, IF I CAN CLARIFY, THE, THE PROBLEM ISN'T SO MUCH THAT THE, THE PROPERTY IS UNSAFE.

IT'S THAT IT, IT'S UNPERMITTED.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MA'AM.

THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? UM, IN THAT CASE, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION.

ACTUALLY, REAL QUICK, I WOULD ADMIT THE APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS.

JUST WANNA BE CLEAR ON THAT.

I'M ADMITTING THE APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS.

UM, I WOULD WELCOME A MOTION TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.

SO MOVE.

SO MOVE BY COMMISSIONER, UH, MUSGROVE.

SECOND, UH, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.

HEARING EIGHT AYES AND NO NAYS.

THE MOTION PASSES.

THE PUBLIC PORTION IS OVER.

UM, UH, MR. TAM, IF YOU DON'T MIND STAYING UP THERE JUST FOR A MOMENT.

UM, IS THERE, CAN I GET A MOTION MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION? MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION BY COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE? UM, ANY, UH, SECOND.

THAT'S THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER FRANCIS.

UM, COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO BEGIN DISCUSSION CHAIR, I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT WE, WE GOT TWO MINUTES AND WE REALLY JUST, UH, YES.

IN THAT CASE, UM, CAN I, UH, I WOULD, I'LL MOVE.

MOTION.

WHAT? CAN YOU WITHDRAW HIS MOTION? NO, NO.

I, UH, ACTUALLY CAN YOU CAN TABLE YOUR MOTION.

SO IF YOU, IF YOU WANT TO, SO BASICALLY WE'RE JUST GOING TO SET IT ASIDE FOR RIGHT NOW SO THAT WE CAN TAKE UP A SECOND MOTION.

I THINK THAT WOULD ALSO BE APPROPRIATE.

WOULD YOU MIND, WOULD YOU MIND TABLING THE MOTION SO WE CAN EXTEND HAVE TABLE JUST A COUPLE MINUTES? OKAY.

UH, IN THAT CASE, IS THAT SUFFICIENT? UH, IF YOU, MOTION TO TABLE AND THEN DO WE HAVE A SECOND? AND THEN WE JUST TAKE A QUICK, WOULD YOU MOTION TO TABLE MOVE THE TABLE? SECOND.

[03:50:01]

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LOCKHART.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

WHAT? OKAY.

UM, YES.

UH, THE MOTION IS TABLED.

I WOULD MOVE TO ADD, UM, FIVE MINUTES, UH, TO GET OUT AT 10 45.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I SECOND.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

I AM, THAT'S A SECOND BY I THINK TIM LOVICH.

I HEARD FIRST.

UM, I ALSO VOTE, AYE, THERE BEING EIGHT AYES, NO NAYS.

UM, THE MEETING WILL NOW GET OUT AT 10 45.

THE MOTION WOULD, UM, WE LIKE TO UNT THE MOTION MOVE TO UNT.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GILKER.

UM, SO GOING BACK TO THE MOTION AT HAND, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT? COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE HERE WE NEED TO VOTE OR, UH, QUESTION ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO UNTD MOTION? AYE.

THAT'S THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED THERE BEING EIGHT AYES? NO NAYS.

UM, THE MOTION IS UNTD.

UM, NOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON IT? FAIR ENOUGH.

UM, I, UH, WILL SAY, UM, TRUTHFULLY, I I, I THINK THAT THE, THE PROBLEM HERE IS REALLY THE PERMITTING.

AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE A SUFFICIENT BASIS TO OVERTURN THE VIOLATION ON THE BASIS OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN TONIGHT.

THE, THESE CASES ARE ALWAYS TOUGH BECAUSE THERE, THERE'S NORMALLY NOT SUFFICIENT BASIS TO OVERTURN THE ACTUAL VIOLATION.

UM, E EVEN THOUGH I, I SINCERELY SYMPATHIZE WITH, WITH WHAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH, BECAUSE IT, IT GENUINELY DOES NOT SEEM FAIR TO YOU.

UM, BUT, BUT ALSO I'M NOT SURE THAT THE PROPER MEANS OF REDRESS IS THROUGH OVERTURNING THE VIOLATION, BUT RATHER THROUGH, UM, ACHIEVING THE PERMIT IF POSSIBLE.

UM, I, IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE MOTION AT HAND? AND, UM, SEEING NONE, IF I CAN JUST ASK CITY STAFF WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO, TO GET A PERMIT FOR THIS? I, I, IF YOU KNOW THAT IS BEST ANSWERED BY, UH, MR. DORSEY.

UM, YES.

IF MR. DORSEY COULD SPEAK TO THAT.

YEAH, NO PROBLEM.

SO THE PERMIT IS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

SO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THE FLOODPLAIN REQUIRE A, A MINIMUM OF TWO FEET OF FREEBOARD.

SO THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO BE, YOU'RE FINISHED FLOOR HAS TO BE TWO FEET ABOVE THE HUNDRED YEAR PLANE.

IF IT'S A ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, IF IT'S JUST A SHED AND, AND YOU JUST STORING ITEMS IN THERE, IT IS A, IT IS A PARKING GARAGE.

IT IS, THERE'S NO MINIMUM FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION.

SO I DON'T KNOW THE DEFINITION OF A SHED IF THAT'S A SHED OR IT'S ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

BUT THE PERMIT SAYS ASSESS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

ALSO, YOU HAVE TO, UM, PROVE THAT THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT WITH BLOOD RESISTANT MATERIAL.

SO IT HAS TO BE CERTIFIED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER THAT THIS WOULD STAY IN FLOOD FORCES IF THERE WAS TO HAPPEN A A HUNDRED YEAR FLOOD.

UM, ANOTHER THING IF WE STILL TALKING ABOUT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, YOU COULD ALSO GET, UM, YOU COULD GET A RESTUDY AND, AND SAY YOU GET A REST STUDY OF THE FLOOD PLANE TO PUT YOUR HOUSE OUTSIDE THE FLOOD PLAIN.

THAT'S AN OPTION.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IF WE STILL TALKING ABOUT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, UM, YOU CAN MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS OR YOU GO THROUGH THE COUNCIL VARIANCE OPTION AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE.

DO, UM, YES, MR. TAM, UM, UH, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY? UH, I JUST WANNA STATE, UH, IT'S NON ACCESSORY STRUCTURE BY DEFINITION OF THE CITY.

IT HAS TO INCLUDE PLUMBING AND THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR SHED DOES NOT INCLUDE PLUMBING ON ELECTRICITY, AND I ONLY USE IT AS STORAGE.

IS THERE ANY RESPONSE TO THAT BY CITY? ELAINE GARS IS THE DIRECTOR.

UM, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THE PLUMBING.

IT HAS TO BE OVER SO MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, AS TO BE AN ADDITION, AS AN NECESSARY STRUCTURE TO IT.

UM, MR. TAM, I I I WOULD SINCERELY HOPE THAT CSOF CAN, UM, CONTINUE TALKING WITH YOU ABOUT THIS.

AND I, I GENUINELY HOPE FOR, UM, EITHER AN A, A, A VARIANCE OR, OR SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION.

UM, IS THERE ANY FURTHER WORD BY COMMISSIONERS IN THAT CASE? I WILL, UM, CONSIDER THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

UM, COMMISSIONER IBARRA.

COMMISSIONER

[03:55:01]

LOCKHART NAY.

COMMISSIONER GILKEY AYE.

COMMISSIONER STOAT AYE.

AND THE VICE CHAIR ALSO VOTES.

THERE BEING A SEVEN AYES AND ONE NAYS.

THE MOTION PASSES.

UM, THAT, UM, THAT ITEM, UM, SECOND? YES.

DO WE, DO WE NEED TO ADDRESS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS BEFORE ADJOURNING? IT IS ON THE AGENDA, SO WE'LL NEED TO EXTEND.

UM, CAN WE MOVE, MOVE TO EXTEND BY TWO MINUTES.

SECONDED.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED NAY? NO.

UH, SORRY.

UM, OKAY.

WE'LL GET OUT AT FOUR, UH, AT 10 50, 47.

UM, UH, MR. TAN, YOUR CASE IS CONCLUDED.

UM, YOU NO LONGER HAVE TO BE HERE.

UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE WAIT.

UM, IF WE CAN MOVE ON TO FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. UH, ACTUALLY, UH, ITEM NUMBER 10 IS THE, UH, DISCUSSION OF THE ANNUAL INTERNAL REVIEW REPORT.

UH, CAN WE MOVE, MOVE TO TABLE, MOVE TO TABLE THAT UNTIL NEXT MONTH? THAT IS DUE AT THE END OF JULY.

UM, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE, UM, WORKED UP BY THE COMMISSION.

IT'S ACTUALLY AUTHORED BY THE CHAIR.

UM, SO DO WE HAVE TO TABLE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ADDRESS IT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DISCUSS IT.

UH, OKAY.

THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE IS IF YOU WANT TO SEE DIFFERENT METRICS, UM, THAT YOU KNOW NOW, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO BRING IT UP SO THAT WE CAN WRITE IT INTO THE, TO THE, UH, NEXT, UH, REPORT.

CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO FUTURE, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

UM, NOT SURE IF WE HAVE TIME TO SERIOUSLY DISCUSS THAT AT THIS TIME.

SO, UM, WE

[6. Case Number: CL 2025-057370]

SO WE MAKE THAT A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM SO THAT WE GIVE IT TO DO, UH, ON JULY.

I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

UM, SORRY TIM, IT'LL BE A TIGHT TURNAROUND.

SO WE'LL PUT, WE'LL PUT THAT ON, UH, THE JULY AGENDA.

AND, UM, CAN WE ALSO PUT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX ON THE JULY? SO WE'LL RETURN ITEM NUMBER SIX.

UM, I BELIEVE WE HEARD, UH, AT THE FIRST PART OF THE MEETING YES.

TESTIMONY ABOUT, UH, VALLEY OAK.

YOU BRING IN THAT ONE.

UH, IT IS, IT IS AVAILABLE FOR SELECTION AS A, A CASE THAT WE CAN BRING FORWARD.

UM, AND IT'S JUST A MATTER OF DECIDING IF IT'S, IT MEETS ALL THE, UH, WELL, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF IT JUST, IF WE HAVE ROOM ON THE AGENDA FOR IT AND IF IT'S KIND OF THE HOTTEST ONE THAT YOU KNOW IS, UH, NEEDS ADDRESSING.

UM, IN THAT CASE, IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOVED TO ADJOURN.

MR. TO ADJOURN BY TOM LOVICH.

UM, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.