[CALL TO ORDER ]
[00:00:06]
SO WE DO, WE, CAN WE MOVE ON? I MEAN, HE'S THERE OBVIOUSLY.
CAN YOU HEAR US? I, I'M JUST CONCERNED VICE CHAIR THAT IF HE'S NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE, IT COULD BE INIT.
OH, WE DO HAVE COMMISSIONER GILKER WHO JUST ARRIVED.
UM, OH, WE HAVE SIX COMMISSIONER SOAD.
CAN YOU HEAR US? UM, VICE CHAIR.
I WOULD REMOTELY JUST MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT MAY THE RECORD REFLECT THAT, UH, COMMISSIONER ST.
BUT HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, LET THE RECORD REFLECT COMMISSIONER ST.
THAT SEEMS TO BE A TECHNICAL ISSUE, BUT WE HAVE SIX MEMBERS SO WE CAN PROCEED.
BEFORE OUR CASES ARE CALLED, THE COMMISSION WILL ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES OR SIX MINUTES FOR ANYONE REQUIRING INTERPRETATION SERVICES.
TONIGHT, THE COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT A HEARING FOR FIVE ITEMS ON THE POSTED AGENDA.
THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER NINE CASES FROM SIX PROPERTIES AND ONE APPEAL.
THE CASES WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA.
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE CASES OUT OF ORDER IF APPROPRIATE.
ALL ATTENDEES AT THE HEARING ARE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE APPROPRIATE DECORUM AND CIVILITY SO AS TO NOT IMPAIR THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS CODE REVIEW.
ANALYST JAMES LES WILL CALL EACH CASE ON THE AGENDA FOLLOWED BY TESTIMONY.
AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICE STAFF WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY MUST COME FORWARD.
TAKE A SEAT NEAR THE PODIUM, OR IF YOU'RE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, UNMUTE YOUR PHONE.
THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES.
FIRST, YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO DO SO.
THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE CITY SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.
AFTER THE CITY HAS PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, THE OWNER REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME TO PRESENT THEIR OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.
THE CITY WILL BE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OWNER TO OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE'S WITNESS ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY.
WHEN THE TIMER INDICATES THAT YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED, YOU MUST FINISH YOUR SENTENCE AND CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION.
WILL OUR DESIGNATED TIMEKEEPER THIS EVENING, PLEASE INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.
JAMES EVERWINE WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN.
AFTER THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CITY HAVE PRESENTED EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE.
I, AFTER THE COMMISSION MEMBERS ASK QUESTIONS, CHAIR WILL ALLOW OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS WHO ARE PRESENT TO OFFER RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CASE.
BOTH SIDES AND THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESS.
THE PROPERTY OWNER'S, REPRESENTATIVE, OR APPELLANT HAS THREE MINUTES.
TO SUMMARIZE, THE CITY MAY PRESENT REBUTTAL AFTER THAT 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 AND A COPY OF THE DECISION WILL BE MAILED TO YOU.
THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION IS FINAL AND BINDING UNLESS APPEAL TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AS PROVIDED IN TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS PROCEEDING, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTION.
WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED, WITNESSES WILL TESTIFY UNDER OATH.
ANY PERSON THAT WANTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IN ANY CASE, INCLUDING THOSE REMOTING IN, PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND SO THAT YOU MAY BE SWORN IN.
DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING, I DO.
WE'LL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING.
[00:05:02]
WE WILL PROCEED TO JUST TO, UH, JUST TO MAKE SURE.I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FOR PUBLIC, UH, COMMUNICATION, UH, ON A, EXCUSE ME FOR AN ITEM THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.
SO THESE ARE JUST CARDS FOR THE, I HAVE FIVE CARDS HERE.
UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO IS HERE FOR AN ITEM THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA? OKAY, GREAT.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
NUMBER ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 28TH, 2026 MEETING.MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE 28TH.
ANY DISCUSSION? WE'LL TAKE A VOICE VOTE.
YOU WITH THIS COMMISSIONER, DO YOU, UM, RIGHT.
DO WE TAKE A ROLL CALL SINCE, UH, COMMISSIONER, UM, CHAIR SOAD IS REMOTE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU PREFER.
WE'LL DO A FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
IT CAN BE JUST BY A VOICE VOTE.
[2. Case Number: CL 2025-114071 ]
EXCUSE ME.THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE PROCEED.
ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 20 25 1 1 4 0 7 1 AND IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7 6 2 0 PARKVIEW CIRCLE.
THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GREEN BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THE CASE IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT IS HOMESTEADED.
THE CASE WAS OPENED IN FEBRUARY OF 2016.
AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT, THERE IS AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH UNSAFE CONDITIONS, WHICH 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 TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G.
AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER BEFORE WE PROCEED, I BELIEVE THE, UH, PROPERTY OWNER IS PRESENT AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A REQUEST OF THE COMMISSION.
YOU CAN PUSH THE BUTTON RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU.
I, I HAVE BEEN IN THE HOUSING PROGRAM FOR ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVE IS ABOUT THAT, WHICH ISN'T ANYMORE.
IT'S, THOSE ARE THE FUNDS I HAVE.
THIS WOULD SIDE HAVE MEDICAL ISSUES, HAD ONE MEETING WITH THEM.
[00:10:01]
SUPPOSED TO STARTED FIRST IN OCTOBER LAST YEAR, I MEAN, IN, UH, AUGUST LAST YEAR, 2024.AND THEN IN THE SPRING WHEN THEY DIDN'T GET IT DONE IN TIME FOR FISCAL YEAR FUNDS, THE FIRST TIME WE HAD TO WAIT FOR THE NEW ONES WHEN IT FELL APART.
UM, I LEFT TOWN FOR SOMETHING.
THE JOB WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN FINISHED.
AT ANY RATE, RATHER THAN GETTING INTO THE DETAILS, UM, I HAD A SERIES OF, I HAD A SERIES OF OVERLAPPING HEALTH ISSUES THAT STOPPED ME IN MY TRACKS.
I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET BACK WITH HOUSING, CONTINUE THE MEETINGS, AND DO ALL THE PIECES.
I DO STILL NEED TO TALK TO THEM.
I ACTUALLY GOT A HEARING NOTICE WHEN I WAS ABOUT TO HAVE A MEDICAL PROCEDURE.
I ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURE COMING UP.
SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR, I, I FEEL ILL PREPARED.
AS A RESULT, I'M KIND OF STARTING OVER.
I, I HAVE MULTIPLE GAME PLANS.
I'M GONNA PURSUE BOTH THINGS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE SO THAT I CAN COME BACK HAVING GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT FARTHER ALONG.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG TO ASK FOR.
I'M STILL DEALING WITH MEDICAL ISSUES AND I'M JUST ILL PREPARED.
I WASN'T ABLE TO BRING, I DON'T HAVE CONTRACTS YET.
UM, AND I DON'T INTEND TO DO ONE OR THE OTHER.
IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK I WILL BOTH BE PURSUING CONTRACTORS AND TRYING TO TALK TO HOUSING, BUT IT'S GONNA TAKE SOME TIME TO DO THAT.
UM, AND SO YOU HAVE, I'M SORRY.
YOU HAVE A PLAN AND YOU HAVE PERMIT? I HAVE A PERMIT.
I DON'T HAVE A, IN OTHER WORDS, I'M HAVING TO START OVER.
THE FUNDS THAT I NEED REQUIRE ME TO GO THROUGH THEIR PROGRAM AND USE THEIR FACILITATORS AND THAT I'M AT THEIR MERCY TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD.
WE, WE, I DID THE FEW THINGS I WAS ABLE TO SEND YOU.
YOU CAN SEE THAT I HAD NOT JUST AN APPROVAL, BUT DISBURSEMENT AUTHORIZATIONS, MEANING GUARANTEES OF THE FUNDS.
SO WITHOUT THOSE FUNDS, IT'S GONNA BE DIFFICULT TO DO THE JOB.
MS. EPSTEIN, BEFORE YOU RUN OUTTA TIME, UH, HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU BE ASKING THE COMMISSION? I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, WHATEVER IT IS.
I WILL BE FURTHER ALONG, BUT I AM STILL DEALING WITH HEALTH ISSUES.
I'M NOT GONNA BE ABLE 30 DAYS, 60 DAYS.
I'LL TAKE WHAT YOU'LL GIVE ME AND I'LL BE HOPEFULLY FURTHER ALONG.
I WILL BE FURTHER ALONG THAN TODAY, BUT I, I AM STILL ABOUT TO HAVE A SURGERY AND SO I WON'T BE ABLE TO DO IT EXCLUSIVELY.
UM, ANY COMMENT? UM, STAFF, I'D JUST LIKE TO BE FURTHER ALONG.
UH, THE CITY DOES NOT, UH, OBJECT TO A CONTINUANCE.
COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE QUESTIONS.
CAN I ASK, HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED THERE? UM, GOSH, ROUGHLY CLOSE TO 30.
YOU CURRENTLY LIVE THERE? YEAH.
AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT HOUSING, YOU'RE, YOU'RE WITH THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I WAS IN THEIR REPAIR PROGRAM.
I LOST A LOT OF MONEY WITH A BAD CONTRACTOR A LONG TIME AGO.
I, I WASN'T PREPARED TO SORT OF TALK ABOUT ALL THIS, BUT I, I KNOW IT ORGANICALLY.
I HAVE A JOB THAT WAS DIFFICULT TO PLACE.
IT WAS HARD TO FIND THE RIGHT CONTRACTOR FOR ONCE.
I LOST A LOT OF MONEY AND NARROWED THE SCOPE.
IT BECAME EVEN HARDER TO PLACE IT.
IT'S, I HAVE A STEEP, WINDY DRIVEWAY THAT'S A DETERRENT.
I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF MONEY AND HONESTLY, IT'S IN A VERY NICE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK THEIR CONTRACTORS TEND TO LOOK FOR THE EASIEST JOB FOR THE MOST MONEY, NOT THE MOST DIFFICULT JOB FOR THE LEAST MONEY.
UM, I HAVE HAD FINDING O OVER THE YEARS, MY, IT BE, IT'S BEEN A STRUGGLE.
IT'S BEEN A STRUGGLE FINANCIALLY AS AUSTIN SPOONED AND BECOME VERY EXPENSIVE.
SO I GOT INVOLVED IN THE REPAIR PROGRAM.
WE'RE KIND OF GOING AROUND HERE.
SHE GOT TO THE PART THAT I'M ASKING.
IS SHE REPAIR PROGRAM? I WANNA, I'M TRYING TO, YEAH, I WANNA ANSWER IF I WASN'T, I'M SO SORRY.
UM, I GOT INTO THIS REPAIR PROGRAM.
I ACTUALLY LEARNED ABOUT IT THREE YEARS AGO.
I WON'T GO THERE 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.
BUT WHEN THIS WENT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, I HAD LESS MONEY, NOT
[00:15:01]
MORE.THE MARKET WAS EVEN HARDER TO COMPETE IN.
I JUST FELT LIKE I COULDN'T, I CALLED THE CITY PROGRAM BACK BECAUSE I KNEW THAT I WAS QUALIFIED FROM PRIOR AND ASKED IF THERE WERE CHANGES WITH THE ELIGIBILITY.
UM, THE FUNDS HAD ACTUALLY GOTTEN LARGER AND I QUALIFIED FOR ONE MORE GRANT THAN I WOULD'VE BEFORE BECAUSE I WAS OLDER.
SO THEY DO SERVE A LOT OF SENIOR, I'M A SENIOR SINGLE PERSON LIVING OFF SAVINGS.
SO MY, I HAVE BEEN STRUGGLING FINANCIALLY SIGNIFICANTLY, AND IT'S GOTTEN WORSE THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IS MY MORTGAGE HAS INCREASED FROM TAXES AND I'M ON MEDICARE AND, YOU KNOW, HEALTHCARE COST AND NOW I'VE GOT A LOT OF IS THAT, IS THAT GRANT GONNA COVER WHAT YOU NEED? THE THE TH SO WE WERE USING THREE GRANTS AND THE VERY FIRST CONVERSATION THAT I HAD, THEY USE INTERMEDIARIES.
YOU KNOW, THEY, YOU AREN'T GOING THROUGH THE CITY, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH NONPROFITS.
THE GOAL WAS WE'RE GONNA GET AS FAR AS WE CAN.
IF IT DOESN'T COVER A HUNDRED PERCENT, IT MIGHT BE 95.
IT WOULD'VE HELPED ME REGARDLESS.
WE WERE DOING SOME OVER AND ABOVE ITEMS. UM, CODE WANTS, SIDING AND DECKING, AS DO I, IT'S COMPLICATED WITH MY HOUSE BECAUSE HALF OF THE SIDING IS FINE.
IF YOU GO THROUGH THEIR PROGRAMS, THEY'RE NOT PUTTING CEDAR ON IT, THEY'RE GONNA WANNA CHANGE CLADDING AND USE MORE BUILDER GRADE STUFF.
SO YOU'RE KIND OF PIECEMEALING TO, IT'S, IT'S HARD TO INTEGRATE A DIFFERENT MATERIAL INTO AN EXISTING HOUSE THAT'S COVERED IN CEDAR, BUT IT NEEDS SOME FASCIA, NOT ALL THE FASCIA.
SO OUR PLAN WAS WE ARE JUST GONNA HAVE IT BID.
WE'RE GONNA ASK FOR EVERYTHING YOU NEED.
IF IT COMES IN HIGH, WE CAN BACK OFF.
I HAVE DOORS THAT VARIOUSLY NEED REPLACING.
SOME COULD BE REPAIRED, SOME ARE WORSE THAN OTHERS.
YOU KNOW, MY HOUSE IS 40 YEARS OLD, SO IF WE CAN GET THREE DOORS, GREAT.
IF WE COULD GET TWO DOORS, GREAT.
WE DID HAVE SOME OVER AND ABOVE IN THOSE FIGURES, BUT SOME OF THE WORK THAT I NEED DONE MAKES SENSE TO DO WHEN THE SIDING'S OFF, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANNA PUT THE SIDING BACK ON AND ALL THE TRIMS AND THEN DO YOUR DOORS DOWN THE ROAD.
THAT'S WHY WE BID IT THAT WAY.
SO THE, THE PLAN WAS JUST TO BID IT AS IF YOU'RE DOING MORE THAT COMES IN HIGH.
WE WERE WITHIN $4,000 OF THE THREE, WE HAD THREE GRANTS FROM THE CITY.
I ALSO WANNA BRING UP AND AN ADDITIONAL 5,000 OUTSIDE THE CITY PROGRAM.
MS. EPSTEIN, LET ME, YEAH, I'M SORRY.
WE'RE, WE'RE KIND OF RABBIT TRAIL A LITTLE BIT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, UH, FOR THE OWNER ABOUT, UH, AND SO WE'LL NEED A MOTION.
I'LL CONTINUE, I'LL MOVE TO CONTINUE FOR 30 DAYS MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO CONTINUE FOR 30 DAYS.
IS THERE A SECOND MOTION? WE HAVE MORE THAN 30.
IS THERE SECOND? IS THIS OPEN TO, TO CONVERSATION? ONCE WE GET A SECOND, THEN WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION.
I JUST DON'T THINK I'M GONNA BE GL 30 DAYS.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT TO 90 FRIENDLY MOTION TO AMEND TO 90 THE MOTION.
I, I, I GUESS I'M, I'M A LITTLE RELUCTANT TO CONTINUE TO SPREAD THIS OUT.
THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 10 YEARS.
THE FIRST COMPLAINT WAS ISSUED 10 YEARS AGO AND THE NEIGHBORS AND EVERYBODY ELSE HAS BEEN PUTTING UP WITH THIS FOR 10 YEARS.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE COMMISSION WANTS TO DO, BUT I, I'D SUGGEST 30 AND ASK HER TO KIND OF GET IT TOGETHER.
I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN 90 TO SEE IF WE GET SOME MOVEMENT ON THE HOUSING SIDE.
UM, IF WE CAN SEE SOME MOVEMENT THERE IN 90, THEN I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
WELL TO MAKE HER THE MOTION STAYING AT 30.
THERE'S A SECOND ON THAT WITH THE VOTE ON THAT.
WELL, DOES COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE ACCEPT ON THE AMENDMENT? NO, I WOULD RATHER KEEP IT AT 30.
ASK IF THE ASK THAT THE OWNER MOVE THINGS ALONG WHICH SHE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT SHE'S ABLE TO TODAY.
SO THEN THE MOTION REMAINS 30 A CONTINUANCE FOR 30 DAYS.
I, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? UH, I BELIEVE, UH, CHAIR SOAD WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN.
TIM, UH, COMMISSIONER SOAD? UH, NO.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR WE'LL DO THE ROLL CALL? I JUST WANNA, I JUST WANNA REMIND THE COMMISSION THIS ISN'T, WE'RE NOT DOING AN ORDER HERE, RIGHT? WE'RE JUST CONTINUING IT.
SO WHEN WE ACTUALLY GET TO THE PART WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE ORDER, Y'ALL CAN GIVE UP TO 90 DAYS THERE AS
[00:20:01]
WELL.AND IF SHE COMES WITH THIS PLAN AND ALL THAT, YOU CAN EVEN GO FURTHER THAN THAT.
SO I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO THROW THAT OUT THERE.
UM, YEAH, WE'RE NOT RULING ON THE ISSUE.
THIS IS JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD TYPE THING FOR 30 DAYS.
UH, IS IT, IS THIS THE ROLL CALL? SORRY.
AYE, UH, COMMISSIONER GILKER? AYE.
MOTION PASSES FOR HOW LONG? 30 DAYS.
I'M, I'M NOT GONNA BE FAR, MUCH FURTHER ALONG IN 30 DAYS, I'M AFRAID.
THE STAFF WILL GET WITH YOU AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MONTH.
DO DO WE HAVE ANY, UH, UNREPRESENTED CASES THAT YOU'D LIKE TO MOVE BACK IN THE, IN THE ORDER THAT WE CALL THEM? WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE HERE FOR ITEM FOUR AND THE ONE FOR ROSEWOOD.
THREE CARDS FOR ITEM FOUR AND THEN ONE FOR EIGHT.
SHOULD WE GO TO FOUR AND, AND WE DO HAVE SOMEONE ONLINE FOR ITEM THREE.
WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE THEN? WANNA GO RIGHT ON THE THREE OR WE CAN GO TO THREE.
SO THE ONLY PERSON HERE FOR THREE IS ONLINE? UM, YES.
AND HE, I SEE HIS NAME ON THE PANEL.
ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA IS
[3. Case Number: CL 2025-102012 ]
CASE NUMBER CL 2 2 5 1 0 2 0 1 2 AND IS REGARDING AN UNOCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 8 0 1 LEDESMA A UH, ROAD.THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GOLD BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE WAS OPENED IN JUNE OF 2023 FROM A COMPLAINT OF UNMAINTAINED PROPERTY ISSUES AND ADDITIONALLY SUFFERED FIRE DAMAGE IN OCTOBER, 2023.
THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY RELATED TO THE SIDED VIOLATIONS.
THIS RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE REPAIR.
IN YOUR READERS AND 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 POSTING POSTINGS, A FIRE INCIDENT REPORT AND EXHIBIT TWO WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INSPECTOR CHRISTINA LUNDY IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS FOR THIS CASE AND WILL DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS THEY ARE DEPICTED.
INSPECTOR LUNDY, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
MY NAME IS CHRISTINA LUNDY AND I'M AN INSPECTOR FOR THE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT FOR BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY LOCATED AT 48 0 1 LEDESMA ROAD, AUSTIN, TEXAS 7 8 7 2 1.
THE OWNER ON RECORD HAS IT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS 7 2 6 LLC.
THE REGISTERED AGENT ON RECORD IS DAVID HAMAS.
ON JUNE 13TH, 2023 THE DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A COMPLAINT VIA 3 1 1 ABOUT TALL GRASS AND WEEDS AND PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUES.
ON JUNE 13TH, 2023, INSPECTOR SYLVIA BIEL INSPECTED THE PROPERTY AND OBSERVED TALL GRASS AND WEEDS.
ON AUGUST 11TH, 2023, INSPECTOR VIEL RETURNED TO THE PROPERTY AND OBSERVED TALL GRASS AND WEEDS THAT THE MAIN DOOR TO THE HOUSE WAS OPEN AND THAT THE WINDOW NEXT TO THE DOOR WAS BROKEN.
ON AUGUST 17TH, 2023, INSPECTOR VIAL RETURNED TO THE PROPERTY WITH A PD TO BOARD AND SECURE THE HOUSE.
INSPECTOR VIAL COMPLETED SEVEN INSPECTIONS ON THE PROPERTY BETWEEN JUNE 13TH, 2023 AND OCTOBER 3RD, 2023.
THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ME AND ON 10 30 20 23
[00:25:02]
I INSPECTOR CHRISTINA LUNDY AND INSPECTOR WILLIS ADAMS ARRIVED AT THE PROPERTY AND OBSERVED THAT AUSTIN FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS ON SCENE, ACTIVELY EXTINGUISHING A FIRE AT THE RESIDENCE.INVESTIGATOR ADAMS CONTACTED DAVID HAMAS BY PHONE TO NOTIFY HIM OF THE FIRE AT THE PROPERTY ON OCTOBER 31ST, 2023 AND INSTRUCTED HIM TO BOARD AND SECURE THE PROPERTY.
MR. HAMAS WAS GIVEN MY CONTACT INFORMATION AND CONTACTED ME ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2023 AND ADVISED HE HAD SENT A CONTRACTOR TO THE PROPERTY TO SECURE THE RESIDENCE BUT THE CONTRACTOR HAD LEFT BEING STARTLED BY PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS BEING INSIDE THE STRUCTURE.
ON NOVEMBER 6TH, I RETURNED TO THE PROPERTY AND OBSERVED THE STRUCTURE HAVE BEEN BOARDED AND SECURED.
I INSPECTOR LUNDY HAVE RETURNED TO THE PROPERTY 56 TIMES TO FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS AND HAVE NOT OBSERVED ANY REPAIRS MADE TO THE STRUCTURE THAT THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY CONTINUE TO DECLINE AND THE PROPERTY HAS BECOME AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.
NOTICES OF VIOLATION HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER LISTED BY TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, BEGINNING IN JUNE 13TH, 2023, DETAILING DEFICIENCIES AT THE PROPERTY.
THERE HAVE BEEN THREE PROPERTY OWNER NAME CHANGES AS PER TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT SINCE THE CASE BEGAN.
AND SUBSEQUENT NEW NOTICES OF VIOLATION SENT TO THE OWNER LISTED ON RECORD.
MR. HAMAS HAS CLAIMED OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY SINCE THE CASE BEGAN AND HE HAS BEEN IN REGULAR COMMUNICATION WITH ME.
THE OWNER HAS BEEN CITED AND FOUND LIABLE AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING THE PROPERTY IS 0.4 MILES FROM AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 0.4 MILES FROM A PUBLIC PARK.
THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE PROPERTY SINCE THE CASE BEGAN.
I AM ESCALATING THIS CASE FORWARD DUE TO THE OWNER NOT REC, RECTIFYING THE DEFICIENCIES AND I WILL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE DEFICIENCIES DEPICTED EXHIBIT TWO A.
THIS IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF 48 0 1 LEDESMA.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE WINDOWS AND FRONT DOOR AB BOARDED ON THE FRONT WINDOW.
UH, ONE OF THE FRONT WINDOWS WAS BROKEN OUT BEFORE BOARDING.
THIS IS THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE ROTTING WOOD ON THE PORCH AWNING AS WELL AS AROUND THE WINDOWS.
THE STAIRS DID NOT APPEAR TO BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND.
YOU CAN SEE A LARGE HOLE IN THE FOUNDATION SKIRTING.
EXHIBIT TWO C AND THIS IS THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE YOU CAN SEE DISLODGED AND BROKEN FOUNDATION.
SKIRTING HOLES AND BREAKS IN THE EXTERIOR WALLS AND BOARDED WINDOWS.
THIS IS THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THE STAIRS, HANDRAILS AND DECKING ARE DILAPIDATED AND NOT STRUCTURALLY SOUND.
THERE WAS DAMAGE TO THIS EXTERIOR WALL AND THE DOOR FROM THE FIRE.
YOU CAN SEE MISSING SITING AND FOUNDATION SKIRTING.
YOU CAN SEE HOLES AND BREAKS IN THE WALLS.
YOU CAN SEE LOUVERS MISSING FROM THE GABLE VENT, ALLOWING FU TO ENTER.
YOU CAN SEE MISSING OR BROKEN SIDING AND FOUNDATION SKIRTING.
YOU CAN SEE ROTTING WOOD ON THE PORCH AWNING AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND.
YOU CAN SEE ROTTING WOOD AND A HOLE IN THE PORCH AWNING AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE STRUCTURALLY SOUND.
THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY OF 48 0 1 LEDESMA ROAD AND URGE THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF THE FACT CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD 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 TWO G.
STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
C REQUEST INSPECTION FROM AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 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 REQUIRED, EXCUSE ME, 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.
[00:30:01]
AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.DO WE HAVE THE OWNER ON THE PHONE? YES YOU DO.
MR. JIMI? YES, MY NAME IS DAVID HESI, MY COMPANY 7 26 LLC.
WERE YOU HERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE, UH, MEETING WHEN WE SWORE EVERYONE IN? YES, SIR.
UH, YOU MAY PROCEED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION.
JUST SO EVERYONE KNOW, THERE'S A ONE MINUTE OR SO DELAY BETWEEN THE LIVE FEED AND UM, AUDIO.
SO I'M GONNA DO MY BEST TO PRESENT MY PRESENTATION.
JAMES, ARE THOSE IT'S MY MATERIAL UP ON THE SCREEN.
UH, LET, UM, GIVE US ONE SECOND TO QUEUE IT UP.
SO I UNDERSTOOD, UM, THAT, UH, DECORUM IS IN PLACE AND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT A LIGHT TO INTERRUPT ME, BUT BECAUSE OF THE DELAY, PLEASE DO INTERRUPT ME.
ANYONE, UM, ATTENDING IF SOMETHING'S NOT COINCIDING WITH WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN OR YOU CAN'T HEAR ME OR FOR WHATEVER REASON.
'CAUSE AGAIN, THERE'S A ONE MINUTE DELAY BETWEEN THE LIVE FEED AND, UM, THE AUDIO.
I CAN'T SEE IT, SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT AT, BUT I CAN SEE AGAIN IF ANYONE WANTS TO INTERRUPT ME OR SOMETHING'S NOT COINCIDING WITH WHAT I'M SAYING, PLEASE STOP ME AND I WILL, UM, PAUSE.
SO, UH, AS MS. LUNDY MENTIONED, THE PROPERTY IS FIRED DAMAGED BY TRANSIENT WHO TRESPASS ON THE PROPERTY.
THEY SAID FIRE TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY SHORTLY AFTER I FOUND OUT ABOUT THAT.
I TOOK THE FOUR ACTIONS HIGHLIGHTED ON PAGE ONE IN YELLOW TO ENSURE THE PROPERTY DID NOT POSE A RISK TO PUBLIC SAFETY OR HEALTH.
THOSE WERE FIRST SECURING A CRIMINAL TRESPASS AUTHORIZATION ARREST WITH THE AUSTIN POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH NO TRESPASSING SIGNED, SUCH THAT IT'S CLEAR TO EVERYONE THAT THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THAT THEY NEED BE ARRESTED.
IT'S IF THAT THEY NEED TO BE ARRESTED IS, UM, TO ANSWER THE PROPERTY.
SECOND, THE HOUSE IS BOARD AND SECURED.
THIRD, ALL UTILITY SERVICE HAVE BEEN REMOVED SO THE WATER, GAS, AND ELECTRIC METERS HAVE ALL BEEN REMOVED IN PREPARATION FOR DEMOLITION.
AS A RESULT OF THAT, DUE TO THE CURRENT CONDITION OF PROPERTY, HE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR UTILITY SERVICE, WHICH MEANS THE HOUSE WILL NOT BE OCCUPIED, RENTED OR OTHERWISE.
AND FINALLY, UM, THANKS TO MS. LUNDY, UH, SHE AGREED TO LET ME CONTINUE GROUND MAINTENANCE WHILE I SORTED OUT THE DEMOLITION OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH ANY OF THE FINDINGS THAT MS. LUNDY HAS PRESENTED.
MY REQUEST IS SIMPLY THAT WE WRITE THE ORDER FOR DEMOLITION WITHIN 90 DAYS, WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES AND NOT FOR REPAIR, AS I HAD NOT FOUND A BUYER WILLING TO REPAIR THE PROPERTY OR ANYONE INTENDING TO MOVE INTO THE PROPERTY AFTER REPAIR ANY BUYER OR INTERESTED PARTY THAT EXPRESSED INTEREST IN DEMOLISHING THE PROPERTY AND REPLACING IT WITH NEWER HOMES.
THIS IS THE ACTUAL, UH, CODE VIOLATION.
IT'S LONGER THAN THIS, BUT THIS IS JUST THE SECOND PAGE HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN.
UM, THE FIRST DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION, YOU'LL SEE AS SHE WOULD CONFIRMED THAT THE PROPERTIES AND FIRE DAMAGE, ONE OF THE RECOMMENDED RESOLUTIONS IS TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE WITH AN APPROVED DEMOLITION PERMIT.
YOU'LL SEE THAT AGAIN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.
MOVING ON TO PAGE THREE, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE FIRST CRIMINAL TRESPASS AUTHORIZATION REQUEST.
I SENT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHORTLY AFTER THE FIRE IN NOVEMBER 23 AT THE TIME, THAT WAS OFFICER ROBINSON, PAGE FOUR, PLEASE.
THIS IS JUST THE LATEST ONE I'VE DONE WITH THE NEWEST DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE NOW EXPIRES IN 2027.
THIS IS JUST TO CONFIRM AND SHOW YOU THAT I DO HAVE AN ACTIVE CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE ON THE PROPERTY.
MS. LUNDY ALREADY SHOWED YOU THE HOUSE IS BORDER AND SECURED.
THIS IS THE SAME PICTURE, BUT THE NO TRUST DOESN'T SHOWN SHOWN.
LAST OCTOBER, MS. LUNDY ASKED ME FOR AN UPDATE ON THE PROPERTY AFTER PERFORMING GROUND MAINTENANCE.
YOU CAN SEE SHE ASKED ME TO PERFORM THE MAINTENANCE, CONFIRM THAT IT WAS DONE, AND SHE ASKED ME WHAT'S THE STATUS OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE.
AT THE TIME, WHICH IS STILL TRUE TODAY, I CONFIRMED THAT A SURVEY
[00:35:01]
HAD BEEN COMPLETED IN FURTHERANCE OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT, THAT THE TITLE OF WORK HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND FURTHERANCE OF THE DEMOLITION PERMIT AND THAT ALL UTILITY SERVICES HAVE BEEN REMOVED AS FAR AS THE SALE TO A BUILDER OR SOMEONE WANTING TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AND BUILD NEW HOMES IN THIS PLACE.I HAD FOUND TWO THAT ONE IS THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR.
THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR IS ACTUALLY ABOUT TO BUILD SIX HOUSES ON THEIR PROPERTY.
THEY JUST FINISHED DEMOLITION LAST YEAR, AND ANOTHER OWNER WHO BUILT ONE HOUSE ON A SINGLE TRACK DOWN THE STREET ABOUT 500 FEET AWAY.
UNFORTUNATELY, BOTH OF THOSE PARTIES, UM, TERMINATE THEIR CONTRACTS SO THEY'RE NO LONGER IN PLAY.
PAGE NINE IS THE, UH, CONFIRMATION THAT GAS SERVICE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PROPERTY.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CITY OF AUSTIN UTILITIES DOES NOT PROVIDE THE SAME SORT OF RECEIPT.
IT'S JUST INTERNALLY NOTED FOR BOTH WATER AND ELECTRICITY.
THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER SHOWS THE DATE I RAN IT YESTERDAY.
YOU CAN SEE THAT $0 DUE PROPERTY TAXES HAVE TO BE PAID TO GAVE DEMOLITION PERMIT.
PAGE JUST A COPY OF THE SURVEY.
I'M NOT EXPECTING TO READ THE COUNTY PRINTS, BUT THE SMALL PORTION I HIGHLIGHTED SHOWS IT WAS COMPLETED IN JULY 25.
OUR CONTRACT THAT I SIGNED WITH A BUYER LAST FRIDAY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE CONTRACT GIVES HIM 45 DAYS OF FEASIBILITY.
MR. HAMAS, CAN YOU WRAP UP FEASIBILITY? CAN YOU WRAP UP YOUR PRESENTATION? YES, SIR.
PAGE 14 SHOWS THAT HE'S GOING TO BUILD SIX SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE PROPERTY, SO HE'S GONNA DEMOLISH IT.
PAGE 16 PLEASE SHOWS THAT THE CLOSING DATE IS APRIL 30TH, WHICH IS ABOUT 65 DAYS FROM NOW.
PAGE 17 IS THE RECEIPT OF THE EARNEST MONEY OPTION MONEY ABOUT $10,000.
AND PAGE 18 IS WHERE WE STARTED, WHICH AGAIN, GIVEN THE STEPS I'VE TAKEN ON THE PROPERTY TO KEEP IT SAFE TO THE PUBLIC AND ITS HEALTH.
AND THE CONTRACT I HAVE IN PLACE, WHICH CLOSES ON APRIL 30TH, RATHER THAN WRITE THIS AS A REPAIR ORDER, WHICH I HAVE NOT FOUND A BUYER WILLING TO DO, OR ANY INTERESTED PARTY WILLING TO DO THAT
I'LL ADMIT THE CITY'S EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO G.
SO UNLESS THERE'S SOME OBJECTION TO, UH, INCLUDE THE OWNER'S EXHIBITS, UH, COMMISSIONERS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE OWNER OR STAFF? I'M SORRY, CHAIR I DIDN'T HEAR.
UM, WAS EXHIBIT ONE FOR THE CITY ALSO ADMITTED? I JUST HEARD TWO A THROUGH TWO GI MISSED THAT.
IT WILL ADD EXHIBIT ONE TO THAT.
SO FOR STAFF, UH, CAN YOU TELL ME WHY WE, WHY YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR REPAIR AND NOT FOR DEMOLITION? BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THEY WERE TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION, THAT WOULD SOLVE THE REPAIR ORDER, CORRECT? CORRECT.
I I I'M OKAY WITH CHANGING IT TO A DEMOLITION ORDER.
SO COMMISSIONERS, WELL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE OWNER COMMISSIONER? UH, UH, A QUESTION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, MR. HAMAS, I NOTICED IN YOUR LETTER YOU WERE HOPING FOR A CLOSING DATE OF FEBRUARY, BUT NOW THE CLOSING DATE IS APRIL 30TH, WHICH IS, I I UNDERSTAND THAT'S THE REASON YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE 90 DAYS.
UM, IS THERE ANY REASON THAT, THAT THAT GOAL CHANGED? WHY DID THAT CLOSING DATE CHANGE? IT JUST SLOWS THE, THE PROCESS DOWN UNFORTUNATELY.
COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? YEAH, IF YOU GO BACK TO PAGE STEPHANIE, MY PRESENTATION, BUT I'LL EXPLAIN THAT.
UH, REGARDLESS, UH, GOOD CATCH.
THE ORIGINAL BUYER WAS THE NEIGHBOR, UH, AT 49, UH, SORRY, 48 0 0 7 ESMA.
THEY HAVE A VERY SIMILAR LOT THAT THEY RECENTLY DEMOED THE HOUSE AND THEY'RE ABOUT
[00:40:01]
TO BUILD SIX HOUSES.UM, I COMMUNICATED THAT TO JAMES EVERWINE BACK IN JANUARY.
THAT'S WHY THIS WAS, THEY WERE INITIALLY DELAYED.
THEY GIMME TIME TO CLOSE THAT.
SO I HAVE TO GO FIND A NEW BUYER.
THE CONTRACT I PRESENTED IS FOR A BRAND NEW BUYER THAT I SIGNED A BRAND NEW CONTRACT WITH LAST FRIDAY.
SO HE HAS 45 DAYS OF FEASIBILITY AND THEN UNDER 45 DAYS TO SECURE HIS FINANCING AND CLOSE.
WHICH IS APRIL 30TH, NOT 45 DAYS.
SEVERAL DAYS ARE WRONG, BUT IT'S, IT'S 45 DAYS OF FEASIBILITY.
AND THEN SOME AMOUNT OF DAY LATER TO TAKE A APRIL 30TH.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GILKER.
WAS THERE A QUESTION? ALRIGHT, ONE MORE COMMISSIONER, UH, FOR THE OWNER, WHY WOULD YOU NOT GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF THE DEMOLITION IN ADVANCE OF YOUR SALE? JUST TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE FOR THE COMMUNITY, DEMOLITIONS ARE COSTLY AND I HAVE FOUND THAT, UM, COSTLY TO ME AND I HAVE FOUND THAT WHEN SELLING PROPERTY TO A BUILDER, THEY CAN DO SO MUCH MORE EFFICIENTLY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO AS A PART OF THEIR BUSINESS.
UM, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION AND OTHER PROPERTY SERVICE ARE NOT PART OF WHAT THEY DO FOR A LIVING.
SO IT'S MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR ME TO DO.
SO IN THE MEANTIME THOUGH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UM, I HAVE TAKEN THE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT IT'S CLEAR THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT I'M WORKING WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT TRYING EXPRESS PASSES ARE REMOVED AND AS YOU SAW FROM MY CORRESPONDENCE WITH MS. LUNDY, ALL GROUND MAINTENANCE IS CURRENT.
AND MR. ROBINSON, JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE SAYING YOU WOULD PREFER A DEMO ORDER WITH THE 90 DAYS? YES, SIR.
I DON'T SEE ANY LANGUAGE HERE.
WE USED TO HAVE DO WE HAVE THAT? GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER.
UNDER OUR TYPICAL DEMOLITION ORDER, THE THE ORDER IS TO DEMOLISH OR THE CITY WILL TAKE CONTROL.
I THINK THAT'S THE WAY IT NORMALLY WORKS.
YOU WANNA MAKE THAT FUNCTION CITY WILL TAKE CONTROL AND THE PROBLEM IS THERE'S, THERE'S NO REAL MEAT BEHIND THIS EXCEPT FOR ADDING A BURDEN TO OUR STAFF TO HAVE TO GO DEAL WITH THE DEMOLITION, WHICH THEY ARE LIMIT, HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES.
AND I THINK WE WOULD RATHER THE PROPERTY OWNER TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS.
I THINK, UM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG STAFF, BUT EXCUSE ME, CHAIR.
SO I I I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE MORE INTO DISCUSSION.
SO PERHAPS IF WE CAN LOOK AT CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN HAVING A MOTION TO ALLOW FOR DISCUSSION ABOUT SURE.
WHAT TO DO ON THE ORDER, THAT WOULD BE BETTER.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE OWNER? IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MU BROWN.
OKAY, BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, BACK TO DISCUSSION FROM, FOR, FOR STAFF.
I, I'M, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT IT, MY UNDERSTANDING AND HISTORICALLY IS YOU'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A REPAIR ORDER THAT'LL KIND OF PUSHES THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS SO THAT IT DOESN'T LAND ON THE CITY'S SHOULDERS TO HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF DEMOLITION ON SOMEBODY'S BEHALF.
IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S, YEAH, YOU'RE SPOT ON.
I MEAN, OUR RESOURCES ARE LIMITED AS FAR AS DEMOLITIONS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME COSTLY ONES.
SO, UM, YEAH, THE FIELD MAKES THE RECOMMENDATION BASED OFF OF WHAT THEY SEE ON THE GROUND.
IF IT'S SALVAGEABLE OR IF IT'S NOT TOO MUCH OF A NUISANCE, THEN THEY MIGHT GO FOR A REPAIR ORDER.
BUT YEAH, I MEAN WE WOULD PREFER A REPAIR ORDER WHEN YOU PUT IT LIKE THAT BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITH IT BEING ABOUT TO BE SOLD AND, AND WHO KNOWS WHO'S GONNA DO WHAT.
UM, YEAH, A REPAIR ORDER WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE MOTIVATION FOR, AND, AND IF HE DEMOLISHES IT, THAT TAKES CARE OF THE REPAIR ORDER AS WELL, SO.
WELL THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.
IT SOUNDS LIKE FROM HIS TESTIMONY THAT HE NEVER INTENDED ON REPAIRING.
SOUNDS LIKE HE WAS JUST LOOKING FOR A BUYER.
SO, UM, BUT IT'S ALMOST THREE YEARS OF ASKING FOR REPAIR.
WHY NOT JUST ASK FOR DEMOLITION SINCE HE HAS SAID HE'S NOT GONNA, HE'S LOOKING FOR A BUYER BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PENALTIES ROLLING RIGHT NOW TO MOTIVATE HIM.
THERE ARE OUR TYPICAL DEMOLITION ORDER SAYS YOU GO DEMOLISH IT OR WE'LL DO IT FOR YOU.
WELL THAT ADDS BURDEN TO THE CITY.
TO HAVE TO GO TAKE CARE OF DEMOLITION.
WE WOULD, I THINK WE WOULD RATHER SAVE THAT FOR SOMETHING BIGGER.
[00:45:01]
AND TELL THE PROPERTY, BUT DOESN'T THE COST GET PUT BACK ONTO THE BUYER TO THE OWNER? I MEAN IT, WE DO PUT A LIEN, BUT I MEAN, IF, IF THE NEW OWNER WANTS TO SIT ON THAT LIEN FOREVER, YOU KNOW, I MEAN IT'D BE HARD TO, TO GET THAT MONEY BACK.AND, AND WE AS A CITY AND YOUR DEPARTMENT HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES.
AND WHEN YOU RUN OUTTA BUDGET, YOU'RE DONE.
IT COULD GET KICKED OUT THE NEXT YEAR.
IT COULD, IT COULD PUSH IT WAY DOWN THE ROAD.
SO IN THE INTEREST OF, OF GETTING THINGS MOVING ALONG, I THINK I AGREE WITH THE, WITH THE REPAIR ORDER THAT FORCES THE ISSUE ON THE PROPERTY OWNER.
ARE YOU OPEN TO THE 90 DAYS BASED ON THE, THE DATE OF THE SALE? I KNOW IT'S NOT, IT'S ANNOYING BUT YEAH.
WELL, SO IS THERE A FORMAL MOTION? WE NEED A MOTION TO, TO HAVE CONVERSATION.
YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION? GO FOR IT.
UH, I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT WITH THE AMENDMENT TO A 90 DAY ORDER.
I THINK I'LL MOVE FOR THAT SECOND MOTION.
COMMISSIONER GARZA AND COMMISSIONER TOM LAVA, JUST TO BE CLEAR, YOUR MOTION IS TO ADOPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH THE MOTION TO WITH THE AMENDMENT, UH, TO AMEND TO 90 DAYS.
BUT YOU'RE ALSO MOTIONING TO ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
COMMISSIONERS DON'T FORGET TO READ THE LANGUAGE THAT THE STAFFS PROVIDE FOR.
IS THERE CONVERSATION? A DISCUSSION? ALRIGHT, WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL.
UH, JUST MR.
CAN WE ASK FOR A 32ND RECESS? 30 SECONDS? YEAH.
OR JUST UH, CAN YOU BEAR WITH ME FOR 30 SECONDS? SURE.
[00:50:10]
UH, YES.[4. Case Number: CL 2026-015458; CL 2026-015210; CL 2026-015441 and CL 2026-016075 ]
FOUR ON THE AGENDA IS REGARDING A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY REGISTERED IN THE REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM LOCATED AT 1 1 2 4 RUTLAND DRIVE.IT IS LOCALLY KNOWN AS CREEK'S EDGE.
THE CASE NUMBERS ARE AS FOLLOWS, CL 20 26 1 5 4 5 8 IS REGARDING BUILDING TWO CL 20 26 1 15 2.
ONE IS REGARDING BUILDING THREE CL 2026.
ONE IS REGARDING BUILDING FOUR AND CL 20 26 0 1 6 0 75 IS REGARDING BUILDING 18 STAFF.
EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE TEAL BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE ABOUT THE PROPERTY.
THIS COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 18 BUILDINGS.
WE'LL BE HEARING FOUR CASES CONCERNING ISSUES OF NO HOT WATER.
THESE CASES WERE OPEN IN OCTOBER, 2025.
AS A RESULT OF A PERIODIC INSPECTION, THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS RELATED TO THE SIGHTED VIOLATIONS.
THE PROPERTY HAS HAD MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS FOR NO HOT WATER, WHICH HAS NECESSITATED THE NEED TO ESCALATE THESE CASES.
THESE STRUCTURES ARE A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND ARE CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU WILL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP, PROOFS OF MAILING FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS AND EXHIBITS 2, 4, 6, AND EIGHT WHICH CONTAIN THE INDIVIDUAL CASES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL CASES, THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORIES, THE NOTICES OF VIOLATION AND PROOFS OF MAILING AND EXHIBITS 3, 5, 7, AND NINE WHICH CONSISTS OF CODES, PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND VIOLATIONS AS WELL AS CODES.
RECOMMENDATION CODE INSPECTOR CRYSTAL MENDEZ IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS FOR THESE CASES AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.
I AM A CODE INSPECTOR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT CODE COMPLIANCE.
THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU TODAY IS A COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1124 RUTLAND DRIVE.
ACCORDING TO THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, TCAD, THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS 1124.
RUTLAND DRIVE TWO LLC SINCE APRIL 10TH, 2015, 1124.
RUTLAND DRIVE WAS REGISTERED AS PART OF THE RENTAL REGISTRATION PROGRAM FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS AFTER RECEIVING A 3 1 1 COMPLAINT CONCERNING NO HOT WATER ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2025 BY CONDUCTED AN INSPECTION AT UNIT 1 9 8 OF BUILDING 18 AT 1124 RUTLAND DRIVE USING A DIGITAL THERMOMETER, I OBSERVED THAT THE WATER TEMPERATURES TO THE KITCHEN SINK RANGE FROM 82 TO 95 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT AT THE UNIT 180 8.
ACCORDING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TITLE 25, SECTION 5 0 5 0.4, A WATER HEATING HEATING FACILITY MUST BE PROPERLY INSTALLED, MAINTAINED AND CAPABLE OF PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF WATER TO BE DRAWN AT EACH SINK AT A TEMPERATURE OF NOT LESS THAN 110 DEGREES FAHRENHEIT WITHIN THE THREE MINUTES.
I WAS INFORMED BY THEN PROPERTY MANAGER THAT SAID STATED BUILDINGS RUN ON A BOILER, BOILER SYSTEM.
BOILER SYSTEMS, THE BOILER ROOMS ARE LOCATED BY BUILDING SIX, 13 AND 15.
FROM THE MOST RECENT PERIODIC INSPECTION CONDUCT CONDUCTED ON OCTOBER 20TH, 2025, THERE HAS BEEN ISSUES SUCH AS LOOSE AND OR MISSING VINYL SIGHTINGS, DAMAGE AND OR MISSING GUTTER PARTS.
UM, BROKEN AND DETERIORATED WINDOW SLASH DOOR TRIMS, NOTICES OF VIOLATION WERE SENT TO BOTH OWNER AND REGISTERED AGENT.
ACCORDINGLY, ON SEPTEMBER 23RD, 2025.
IN ADDITION, I COMMUNICATED WITH A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BY EMAIL CONCERNING THIS CASE.
FURTHERMORE, I RECEIVED SEVERAL OTHER COMPLAINANT COMPLAINTS THROUGHOUT 1124 RUTLAND DRIVE FOR NO HOT WATER.
OTHER BUILDINGS AFFECTED WOULD BE 2 3 4 16 18 WITH NUMEROUS APARTMENTS ALSO THAT CAME FORWARD WITH A CONCERN.
SINCE THEN, THREE UNITS HAVE BEEN VACATED AND ONE UNIT HAD THE RESIDENT TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER UNIT.
THE NEW OWNERS HAVE PROVIDED UNIT 45 TO FURTHER ASSIST RESIDENTS OF THIS PROPERTY WITH
[00:55:01]
U THE USE OF HOT WATER.I WILL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE DEFICIENCIES DEPICTED EXHIBIT THREE A.
WE HAVE THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IN QUESTION AT 1124.
RUTLAND DRIVE CREEKS, EDGE APARTMENTS EXHIBIT THREE B.
WE HAVE THE UN IDENTIFIED BUILDING NUMBER TWO.
WE HAVE THE UNIT NUMBER IDENTIFIED AS NUMBER 13.
YES, I APOLOGIZE, I CAN'T SEE THE DIGITAL THERMOMETER.
THE INITIAL TEMPERATURE FOR THAT UNIT IS 71.8.
WITHIN THE THREE MINUTES WE SHOW THE TEMPERATURE DROPPED TO 66.7 DEGREES.
IN EXHIBIT THREE E EXHIBIT FIVE A WE HAVE THE IDENTIFYING BUILDING NUMBER THREE.
NEXT PHOTO WE IDENTIFIED IN EXHIBIT FIVE B, UNIT 25.
WE CAN SHOW THAT THE TEMPERATURE STARTS AT 72.7.
WE CAN SHOW THAT IT'S AT 75.2 WITHIN THE THREE MINUTES.
NEXT PHOTO WITHIN EXHIBIT SEVEN A, WE SHOW BILL D NUMBER FOUR IDENTIFIED IN THIS PHOTO.
NEXT PHOTO SEVEN B WE SHOW UNIT 35 IDENTIFIED.
WE CAN SHOW THE INITIAL TEMPERATURE AT 65.7.
NEXT PHOTO WITHIN THE THREE MINUTES WE SHOW 64.2.
AT 70 EXHIBIT NINE A WE HAVE THE IDENTIFIED BUILDING 18.
WITHIN EXHIBIT NINE B, WE HAVE THE IDENTIFIED UNIT 1 98.
WITHIN EXHIBIT NINE C, WE HAVE THE TEMPERATURE AT 76.1 DEGREES.
WITHIN THE THREE MINUTES IN EXHIBIT D, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT REACHES THE A HUNDRED DEGREES TEMPERATURE.
THIS NOW CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THESE STRUCTURES ARE PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND ARE CONSIDERED SUBSTANDARD WITH UNSAFE CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH NINE D CONSISTING OF EXHIBITS 1, 2, 4, 6, AND EIGHT, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS 3, 5, 7 AND NINE MARKED AS THREE A THROUGH THREE E FIVE A THROUGH FIVE D, SEVEN A THROUGH SEVEN D AND NINE A THROUGH NINE D, WHICH ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND VIOLATIONS.
BEFORE I READ THE THE RECOMMENDATION, I HAVE A REQUEST BECAUSE THE ORDERS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.
PLEASE ALLOW ME TO READ JUST ONE REPRESENTATIVE ORDER WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE REQUESTING FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS, ONE FOR EACH OF THE FOUR STRUCTURES OF COURSE.
STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
AND IN EACH OF THE FOUR CASES, ORDER THAT THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF TODAY'S HEARING, PROVIDE ONSITE TEMPORARY HOT WATER FACILITIES AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES TO ALL RESIDENTS OF BUILDINGS.
TWO WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE STRUCTURES AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
C REQUEST INSPECTION FROM THE CITY FROM AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH TWO A AND TWO B AND THREE 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.
AN INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT
[01:00:01]
UNTIL PAID IN FULL.AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION.
MAKE SURE I GET THE EXHIBIT NUMBERS THAT WERE ADOPTING HERE.
I'VE GOT THE THREE NINE FOR ME ONE THROUGH NINE.
UH, EXHIBITS ONE THROUGH NINE D EXIST CONSISTING OF EXHIBITS 1, 2, 4, 6, AND EIGHT.
AND EXHIBITS 3, 5, 7, AND NINE.
UM, JANE, I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY OWNER SUBMITTED AN EXHIBIT AS WELL.
DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND ADMIT IT? HE WILL GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXHIBIT AS WELL, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OBJECTIONS.
WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE FOR SPEAKING TONIGHT.
WHO'S BEGINNING? UH, MY NAME IS DANIEL FORBES WITH ARTESIA REAL ESTATE.
WE ARE THE GRANTEE RULAND CE APARTMENTS, LC FOR THIS PROPERTY.
SO I'LL SPEAK FIRST AND THEN I HAVE ANGELA ORDON HERE WHO'S WITH SCARLET KEY PROPERTIES, WHO IS OUR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP.
AND THEN, UM, IF NECESSARY, WE HAVE, UH, ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS WHO'S BEEN WORKING WITH US ON, ON THESE ISSUES.
BUT I'D LIKE TO SAY FIRST, UH, THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION FOR, FOR THE TIME TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.
AND, UM, IF WE CAN OPEN UP THE, THE EXHIBIT IS IT ON THE SCREEN? THANK YOU.
SO THIS FIRST SLIDE, UM, WE CAN SKIP ONTO THE SECOND SLIDE JUST TO GIVE SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, UH, TO, TO OUR, UH, OUR TIME OF WORKING ON THIS PROPERTY.
WE TOOK OVER THE PROPERTY ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2025.
DURING THAT TIME, WE HAD FIVE VIOLATIONS ISSUED TO US AND WE CLEARED ALL OF THEM WITHIN SIX DAYS.
UH, COMPARE THAT TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERSHIP GROUP.
UH, 1124 RUTLAND DRIVE TWO WHO HAD, UH, NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS AS SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE WITH A MUCH LONGER TIMEFRAME IN WHICH TO COMPLETE THEM.
AND SO OUR, OUR GOAL AND OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN TO, SINCE TAKING OVER THE PROPERTY ON DECEMBER 12TH, 2025 TO IDENTIFY THESE ISSUES, UH, THE BOILER REPAIRS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, PLUMBING REPAIRS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE EXTENSIVE THAN WE ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED THEY WOULD BE.
UH, HAVING SAID THAT, WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN RESTORING HOT WATER TO EACH OF THE BUILDINGS IN QUESTION.
AND, UH, WE, UH, YEAH, WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN THAT REGARD AND, UH, BELIEVE WE ARE WELL ON OUR WAY TO A PERMANENT AND COMPLETE SOLUTION.
AND I'LL NOW YIELD THE REST OF THE TIME TO ANGELA ORDON WITH SCARLET KEY PROPERTIES.
HELLO, MY NAME IS ANGELA ORDON AND I'M WITH SCARLET KEY PROPERTIES.
I HAVE NEVER BEEN ON AN ROP LIST AND NOR DID I WANT TO BE, BUT WE HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH AND THE HOT WATER IS ALREADY COMPLETE.
SO IN THE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, ONE THROUGH SEVEN, WE CURED THE HOT WATER.
UM, IT WAS THROUGH A LOT OF RESEARCH, UH, THAT WE HAD TO DO.
THERE WAS POUNDS OF CALCIUM IN THE LINES TO THE POINT WHERE EVEN IF THE PUMPS WERE WORKING, UM, EVEN WHEN THE PUMPS WERE WORKING, UH, THE, THEY WERE BLOWING THE LINES OR THEY WEREN'T PUSHING TO BUILDING TWO.
NOW THE ISSUE THERE WAS THERE'S A LOOP FOR THE BOILER SYSTEM, RIGHT? THIS LOOP WAS TERRIBLE AND IT HAD, UH, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE CALCIUM AND ALL OF THE THINGS THERE.
SO THAT'S THE WAY THE PIPES WERE LOOKING.
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY GOT WATER THROUGH THERE, BUT WE FIRST FIXED THE BOILERS AND THE PUMPS AND WHEN THAT WAS FIXED, IT WAS BREAKING THE PIPES BECAUSE OF THIS.
SO WE TOOK UP ALL OF THE LINES AROUND BUILDINGS ONE THROUGH SEVEN AND WE DUG THEM UP, WE CLEANED THEM OUT, AND WE HAVE SOLUTIONS FOR THE FUTURE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.
[01:05:01]
AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS THE RERO OF THE BOILER SYSTEM BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL BOILER SYSTEM HAD A VERY CONFUSING LINE.IT WAS A HUGE CIRCLE THAT IT COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH, BUT WE DID CLEAR OUT THE LINES AND IT IS WORKING 100% AND THE BUILDING'S 18, UH, 16 AND 18, WE'RE WAITING FOR THE GLUE TO DRY.
THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK.
NOW, UM, OUT OF ALL OF THE, UH, VIOLATIONS THAT WE HAVE, I HAVE FIVE LEFT APPROXIMATELY, AND I HAVE PLANS FOR ANY OF THE OTHER ONES THAT ARE LARGER.
SO THOSE ONES ARE FOR, UH, THE STAIRCASES, THE SIDING, UM, AND WE HAVE TO GET AN ENGINEER.
I HAVE AN ENGINEER'S LETTER, I'M SORRY IT WASN'T PROVIDED EARLIER, BUT AN ENGINEER'S LETTER THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON IT BECAUSE WE NEED TO SET THE PRECEDENT AND HOW WE'RE GONNA FIX ALL THESE STAIRS AND RAILINGS.
WE HAVE FIXED THE SMALL WELDING SPOTS, BUT THERE'S SOME COLLAPSING OR LIKE DETERIORATING PATIOS THAT NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH WORK BECAUSE WE NEED TO, THE ENGINEERS REPORT ON HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ADDRESSED, I WOULD SAY 95% OF EVERY CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION THAT WE HAVE.
AND WE'VE SENT THE MESSAGE OUT TO OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, CRYSTAL, AND UH, WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR HER TO COME OUT AND CHECK IT OUT.
UM, SO WE DO HAVE THE CHALLENGE.
OKAY, SO THESE ARE THE BOILER, THE BOILER SYSTEM REPAIRS, TIMELINE, CHALLENGES AND RESOLUTIONS.
SO YOU CAN SEE KIND OF THE PROCESS.
THAT'S SOME DETAILS THAT LORENZO OUR CONTRACTOR HAD PROVIDED TO US.
SO WE WANTED TO SHARE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE DAY ONE.
IT HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT, BASICALLY REDOING ALL OF THE PLUMBING TO GET IT THROUGH A SOLUTION.
DOES THAT CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? ANYTHING ELSE? YES, IT DOES.
COMMISSIONERS QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR OWNERS? YEAH, I GOT ONE COMMISSIONER.
SO WHILE, UM, WHAT, UH, I KNOW YOU BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN EARLY DECEMBER, BUT DURING THIS TIME, WHAT RELIEF HAS BEEN OFFERED TO THE TENANTS WHO DIDN'T HAVE HOT WATER? I COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT? YES, SIR.
WE HAVE, UH, WE'VE OFFERED TRANSFERS TO ALL OF THEM.
ONCE WE TALKED TO CHRIS A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THIS ISSUE, WE OFFERED TRANSFERS.
WE DID OFFER AN APARTMENT FOR HOT SHOWERS IF THERE'S, IF THEY JUST NEEDED TO TAKE A HOT SHOWER.
SO WE'VE GIVEN MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS, UM, FOR ANYBODY.
AND SOME PEOPLE JUST WANNA STAY WHERE THEY'RE AT.
BUT WE HAVE MADE OFFERS TO ALL OF THEM.
DID THE OFFER TO TRANSFER, DID THAT, UH, DID YOU OFFER TO HELP WITH MOVING COSTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? 'CAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT CAN BE OFTEN A BURDEN, ESPECIALLY FOR ELDERLY TENANTS AND THAT KIND OF THING.
SO WE WORKED OUT A LOT OF GOOD DEALS FOR THE TENANTS MM-HMM
AND CURRENTLY THEY'RE PAYING MORE THAN MARKET.
SO WE MOVED THEM AND GAVE THEM THE MARKET PRICE.
SO IT'S CHEAPER THAN THEY WERE PAYING AND IT'S WAY MORE BENEFICIAL.
DO YOU MIND IF I ASK LIKE JUST BALLPARK PERCENTAGE OF TENANTS THAT TOOK THAT TRANSFER? 23.
23 PEOPLE OUT OF BUILDING TWO, THREE, AND FOUR.
NOW THE OH, OH, OF THE TOTAL TENANTS REMOVED? YEAH.
SO YEAH, ABOUT WE OFFERED IT TO, UM, I THINK WE OFFERED IT TO 23 PEOPLE.
WELL, WE DISCUSSED IT WITH EVERYBODY, BUT THE 23 PEOPLE EITHER DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO OR THEY DID.
BUT, UM, WE OFFERED IT TO THE WHOLE, ALL THE BUILDINGS.
SO IF YOU TAKE IT TO THE, UH, SIDE OF, UM, THE BUILDING PERCENTAGE, IT'S SEVEN, UH, BUILDINGS OUT OF 15, 18.
SO, UM, WE OFFERED IT TO A LOT OF PEOPLE.
LIKE A HUNDRED, 200? NO, NOT A HUNDRED.
SO THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH PERCENTAGE THEN FOR THE TRANSFERS.
MORE THAN I'VE SEEN IN THE PAST.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR THE CITY.
DO WE TEST FOR LEGIONELLA? FOR WHAT? I'M SORRY FOR LEGIONELLA WHEN THE WATER'S LESS THAN 110 DEGREES IN PLUMBING WINES.
THAT MEANS NO, YOU TALKED, YOU SAID THAT THE 110 DEGREES MM-HMM
THE WATER HAS TO BE AT A HUNDRED.
THAT'S UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE.
SO IT, THIS IS REQUIRED FOR A, THE ORDINANCE FOR OUR, OUR, UH, OR ORDINANCE.
SO IT HAS TO BE AT 110 DEGREES.
SO IF THE TEMPERATURE IN THESE LINES WAS UNDER 110 DEGREES FOR A PROLONGED PERIOD OF TIME THAT OFFERS, UM, THE ENVIRONMENT FOR LEGIONELLA.
SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW, UM, YOU GUYS
[01:10:01]
DID FLUSH THE LINES AND SO THAT'S A WHOLE NEW SET OF PIPING THAT WAS RUN? OR WAS THAT, HOW WAS THAT FIXED? NOT A WHOLE NEW SET OF PLUMBING.WE WE CLEANED IT OUT, FLUSHED THEM OUT INDIVIDUALLY.
SO THEY'VE ALL BEEN RINSED OUT VERY WELL.
AND WE'RE HOPING TO DO MORE OF A, A, A WASH THROUGH AS WE COME UP WITH OUR MAINTENANCE PLANS.
WE'RE GONNA BE PUTTING FILTERS IN THE BOILER SYSTEMS TO PREVENT THAT CALCIUM AND PREVENT ANY EXTRA CONCERNS.
UM, AS WELL AS WE HAVE SOME KIND OF, UM, WE HAVE THE ACCESS AND THE MAPPING TO WHERE WE CAN BE MORE INFORMED TO BE ABLE TO ACT MORE QUICKLY.
AND WE'RE REACHING THE 110 DEGREES FOR THREE MINUTES.
J JUST GIVE SOME 60 SECONDS, JUST GIVE SOME INFORMATION.
IS DESCALING THE PIPES? THIS, THE, THE PIPES ARE SCALE SCALED, SO THEY HAVE TO BE DESCALED AND THAT'S WHAT'S OCCURRING.
SO THE WATER HAS TO BE AT 110 FOR SANITARY REASONS? YEP.
MR. CHAIRMAN, TIM, UH, COMMISSIONER STOKE.
UH, JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR THE OWNER.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I, I HEARD CORRECTLY THE, THE HOT WATER ISSUE YOU'RE REPRESENTING TO THE, THE COMMISSION THAT THE HOT WATER ISSUE IS CURED IN ITS ENTIRETY.
YOU KNOW, AS OF NOW, HOT WATER IS, IS FLOWING.
IS THAT, DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? AS OF THIS MOMENT RIGHT NOW, WE, I THINK WE CAN SAFELY SAY FOR BUILDINGS TWO, ONE THROUGH SEVEN WAS AFFECTED.
SO TWO, THREE AND FOUR ARE 100% WORKING 18 IS PENDING RIGHT NOW.
AND IT SHOULD BE, IT SHOULD BE RUNNING LATER ON TOWARDS THE NIGHT OR BY TOMORROW FIRST FOR ALL THE OTHER PRESENTATIONS.
SO, SO THE PROVISION OF THE RECOMMENDED ORDER, UH, ALLOWING 15 DAYS, UM, TO PROVIDE HOT WATER, THAT WOULD BE FAR MORE OH YES.
DAYS THAN YOU, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT? YES.
OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
COMMERS, IS THERE A MOTION I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S? PROPOSED FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY? SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION HEARING? I WILL.
I, OH, UH, I'D JUST LIKE TO CHIME IN.
IF WE ADOPT THE ORDER BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE TOLD US, THEN IT'S ALL GOOD.
AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE Y'ALL UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT AS LONG AS THE WATER ISSUES ARE CURED, EVEN IF WE ADOPT THIS REPAIR ORDER, IF THE ISSUE CURED, THEN YOU'VE SATISFIED THE REPAIR ORDER IF THE CONDITIONS ARE CURED.
I'D LIKE TO BE RECOGNIZED FOR A MOTION.
UM, AT THIS TIME I WOULD MOVE.
I MOVE TO AMEND, I WANNA MOVE TO AMEND THE PENDING MOTION.
UM, I WANT TO, I WOULD MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION, UH, TO, UH, TO, TO ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS.
IN FACT, IN CONCLUSION OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THAT ORDER.
FIRST IN PARAGRAPH ONE OF THE ORDER, STRIKE 15 DAYS AND SUBSTITUTE FIVE DAYS, AND THEN SECOND, IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING EXISTING PARAGRAPH THREE OF THE ORDER, ADD A NEW PARAGRAPH FORWARD TO READ AS FOLLOWS.
ON THE SIXTH DAY, IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED WITH PARAGRAPH ONE OF THIS ORDER, ASSESS A PENALTY OF $1,000 PER DAY, WHICH WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH ONE OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED, UH, WITH INTEREST TO ACCRUE AT 10%.
UM, I OFFER THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, UM, MOTION OR ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT.
SORRY, DIDN'T YOU SECOND THE MOTION? SECOND.
YEAH, YOU HAVE TO AGREE BECAUSE OF THAT.
UM, CAN I GET A LITTLE BIT MORE AS TO WHY YOU ARE AMENDING? YEAH, CERTAINLY.
I JUST, THEY'RE REPRESENTING THAT THE WATER ISSUE IS ALREADY DEALT WITH.
THE WATER IS OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT.
UH, IF THAT'S TRUE, MY AMENDMENT WILL COST THEM NOTHING.
UM, AND IF IT'S NOT TRUE, IT'LL COST THEM A LOT.
AND SO, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THEY SAY IT'S, IT'S ALREADY UP AND RUNNING IN MOST OF THE BUILDINGS AND NEEDS ANOTHER DAY OR TWO WHEN ONE OF THEM FIVE DAYS SHOULDN'T HURT.
UM, BUT, UH, THIS, THIS JUST PUTS A LITTLE, PUT SOME TEETH IN IT.
THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE SPIRIT OF IT.
[01:15:01]
PROPERTY OWNER IF THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT? SURE.YOU WOULD REQUEST, WE WOULD BE OPEN TO THE FIVE DAYS, BUT WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THE PENALTY GO BACK FROM, UH, THE PROPOSED AMENDED 1000 PER DAY TO 1000 PER WEEK, JUST TO GIVE US ENOUGH, UH, UH, BUFFER IN CASE THERE IS ADDITIONAL TROUBLESHOOTING THAT WE NEED TO DO FOLLOWING THE WORK THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING AND WILL BE DOING OVER THE NEXT FIVE DAYS.
BUT YOU'VE ALREADY SAID CHAIRMAN, ALL OF THESE ARE NON-ISSUE ONE THROUGH SEVEN.
SO TWO, THREE AND FOUR ARE 102, 2 3 AND FOUR ARE 100% COMPLETE.
RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE WORKING CURRENTLY ON 18, WE'RE GONNA BE TURNING IT ON, BUT WE DO NOT REALLY KNOW IF BY THE TIME WE TURN IT ON, THERE IS SOME CALCIUM ON THE LINE STILL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAR OUT.
SO WE PROBABLY HAVE TO SHUT IT OFF AGAIN FOR ONE DAY WHILE PEOPLE ARE AT WORK AND THEN TURN IT BACK ON.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF FIVE DAYS COULD BE ENOUGH, BUT IF WE KEEP IT AT 15, THEN IT, IT'LL BE BETTER FOR EVERYBODY.
WE KNOW WE CAN GET THE HOT WATER, WE JUST DON'T TRUST THE PIPES.
SO ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS WHEN WE DO GET IT WORKING FUNCTIONALLY, SOMETIMES THEY BREAK AND THINGS GO ON LIKE THAT.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST, JUST TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, WHETHER WE HAVE FIVE DAYS OR NOT.
'CAUSE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS NONSTOP AND I HAVE NO MAJOR CONCERNS OF NOT MAKING THE FIVE DAYS, BUT I FEEL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE COMPLETED THE MAJORITY OF THE LIST AND WE'LL BE DONE HERE VERY SOON.
SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST, THERE'S, THERE'S PROBLEMS THAT ARISE.
MR. CHAIRMAN, MAY I, THANK YOU.
AND JUST, JUST JUST FURTHER TO THIS, TO BE CLEAR, THE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF, OF PARAGRAPH ONE ARE, ARE TO ENSURE THAT THE, THAT THE, AS I, AS I READ IT, THAT THEY CAN COME INTO COMPLIANCE BY MAKING SURE THERE'S WATER ON SITE AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT NEED TO BE WITH THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, RIGHT? AND, AND, AND THEN IN TERMS OF, OF A WEEKLY PENALTY, WELL, THERE'S A REASON THAT THIS WAS FIF 15 DAYS TO BEGIN WITH, AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S PRESSING, RIGHT? AND, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT A 45 DAY ISSUE.
YOU KNOW, EVERY DAY YOU GO WITHOUT HOT WATER IS A, YOU KNOW, IS A BAD DAY FOR HYGIENE AND SANITATION.
AND, AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, SO I MEAN, YOU KNOW, A PENALTY ON A, ON A WEEKLY BASIS, IT, IT WOULD JUST BE, IT WOULD BE NEGLIGIBLE.
THAT WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF $2,000.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'LL LEAVE IT TO THE WILL OF THE BODY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THE, THE, THE, THE SECONDER OF THE ORIGINAL MOTION HAS NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT STILL HAS QUESTIONS, BUT THE, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION HAS ACCEPTED THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
I THINK THAT CONSTITUTES A SECOND.
AND IF I UNDERSTAND THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE AT THIS POINT, THAT IT, IT'S JUST ELIGIBLE TO BE CALLED, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, MY AMENDMENT TO THE, TO THE PENDING MOTION IS ELIGIBLE TO BE CALLED.
SO RESPECTFULLY, MR. CHAIR, I, I, I WOULD, I WOULD CALL THE VOTE.
SO THE MAIN MOTION'S STILL ON THE FLOOR.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE SECONDER.
SO WE'RE STILL DEALING WITH THE MAIN MOTION.
IT HAS BEEN SECONDED BY, IT HAS BEEN SECONDED BY A COMMISSIONER AND IS THEREFORE ELIGIBLE TO BE VOTED ON.
SO AS I UNDERSTAND THE, YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL MOTION ON THE TABLE, WHICH WAS TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.
THAT ORIGINAL MOTION WAS THEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER GARZA.
THEN COMMISSIONER SOAD MOVED, UH, PROPOSED A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
AND I, FOR STAFF, AND MY SAKE, I'M JUST GOING TO REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME.
SO AGAIN, TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT, INSTEAD OF 15 DAYS TO REPAIR THE HOT WATER, IT WOULD BE FIVE DAYS.
OSTAD, JUST TO MAKE SURE, ARE YOU SAYING ON THE SIXTH DAY, IF THAT IS NOT REPAIRED, THEN A $1,000 PER DAY FINE WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
AND THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE 45 DAYS OR THE, THE $1,000 PER WEEK FINE THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED IF ON THE 46TH THE DAY ALL OF THE REPAIRS WERE NOT COMPLETE.
SO THEN THANK YOU, UH, COMMISSIONER MUST, SORRY, THE 15TH DAY TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY WATER.
IT'S NOT REALLY REPAIR EVERYTHING, RIGHT, SONIA? I MAY HAVE, I MAY HAVE, SORRY, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.
I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO SORT OUT WHAT THE, WHERE THE AMENDMENT APPLIES.
YEAH, I, I, I MAY HAVE HASTILY
[01:20:01]
UH, ENDORSED YOUR DESCRIPTION BECAUSE IT'S NOT SO MUCH A, A, A REPAIR WOULD DISPOSE OF REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH ONE.BUT I, I THINK IT NEED NOT BE FULLY REPAIRED FOR THAT PARAGRAPH TO BE COMPLIED WITH.
I MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF, IF YOUR PIPES AREN'T WORKING ON DAY FIVE, AS, AS I'M PROPOSING, WE AMEN, YOU CAN BRING IN TRUCKS FULL OF CLEAN HOT WATER.
YOU KNOW, YOU JUST, YOU JUST CAN'T LET FOLKS GO WITHOUT CLEAN OUT WATER, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT, WITHOUT PAYING US A A THOUSAND A DAY THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, SO THE IDEA IS WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT PENDING THESE OTHER REPAIRS BY THIS REPEAT OFFENDER, THAT YOU KNOW, THAT THE, THAT ISSUE IS DEALT WITH.
SO THAT, THAT WAS THE SPIRIT OF IT.
AND, AND I HOPE I FRAMED IT PROPERLY.
SO IT'S THE, THE 'CAUSE IT DOES SAY PROVIDE ONSITE TEMPORARY HOT WATER.
AND SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE ACTION WOULD BE THAT THEY PROVIDE THAT ON THAT YEAH.
HOT WATER AND THEN THE PENALTY WOULD, WOULD BE IMPOSED IF ON THE SIXTH DAY THAT WATER WAS NOT PROVIDED.
AND TO YOUR POINT, HOWEVER THAT'S PROVIDED AS LONG AS, AS THEY HAVE IT.
NO, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
I THINK WE ALL JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE UNDERSTANDING.
I, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION ONE POINT, UH, REPAIRS ARE BEING MADE.
I KNOW THAT THEY'RE FLUSHING OUT THE LINES, BUT IF ANYTHING IS BEING RE-ROUTED, IF ANY NEW LINES ARE BEING PUT, THEY NEED TO BE PERMITTED.
SO IF THERE IS NO PERMITS AT THIS TIME, THEN THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE.
IT MAY TAKE LONGER THAT THE, TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS, UH, THE HOT WATER BACK AND, AND FUN FUNCTION IN AGAIN.
SO THAT, THAT'S WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MAP, YOU SEE THE REROUTING THAT THEY REROUTED, WHERE THE LINE NEW LINES WERE PLACED.
UH, ARE THERE PERMITS PULLED? UH, RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO PERMITS ACTIVE THAT WE SEE ON, IN, IN OUR, UH, ED DATABASE.
SO THAT IS ONE ISSUE THAT I, THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT TOO.
AND, AND CERTAINLY I DON'T WANNA SPEAK OUT OF, OUT OF TURN CHAIR, UH, CHAIR FRANCIS, BUT I, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD PROBABLY GO MORE TOWARDS THE OVERALL REPAIRS.
THE SECOND, WHICH THE 45 DAYS APPLIES, NOT SO MUCH THE PROVISIONED PART.
SO AS LONG AS THEY'RE JUST GIVING A, A SPACE FOR HOT SHOWERS OR A WAY TO GET HOT WATER.
UM, SO WITH THAT BEING UNDERSTOOD, COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE, YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, CORRECT? YES.
AT THAT POINT, BECAUSE THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ORIGINAL MOTION MAKER, THE WHAT, WHAT IS NOW CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU ALL VOTE.
SO NOW YOU VOTE TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE MOTION, THE ORIGINAL MOTION GETS AMENDED AND IF YOU ALL VOTE TO SAY YES, NOW WE'RE GOING TO LISTEN TO THIS AMENDMENT, THEN WE TAKE A MOTION ON THE OVERALL MOTION AS AMENDED.
IF THAT MAKES SENSE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
'CAUSE I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT LAYERED.
SO FIRST OF ALL, IT WOULD'VE BEEN EASIER TO VOTE THAT DOWN AND THEN JUST HAVE A NEW, YEAH.
SO, SO RIGHT NOW THE, HE'S ACCEPTED.
DO YOU ALL WANT TO AMEND THIS MOTION, YES OR NO? THAT'S, THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION.
BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION? NO, WE JUST, WE CLEANED THEM BOTH UP IN THAT.
YEAH, I'M, I'VE, WELL IF ALL WE'RE VOTING ON RIGHT NOW IS THE MO UH, IS ON THE AMENDMENT PORTION, BELIEVE YOU WILL STILL NEED TO HAVE A QUORUM VOTE IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT CARRY.
SO IN THAT CASE, THE MO THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION FAILS.
AND SO NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH IS AGAIN, TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.
SO BACK ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
[01:25:01]
UM, COPY OF THE ORDER WILL BE MAILED OUT TO YOU.STAY IN TOUCH WITH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, YOUR STAFF.
[5. Case Number: CL 2025-104937 ]
YES.OR SHOULD WE, REGARDING REGARDING CASE NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA.
THE CASE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PULLED BY STAFF, UH, IN LIEU OF, UM, NEW OWNERSHIP.
WE RECEIVED A, BECAUSE I WAS GONNA SAY THERE'S NOTHING HERE, SO I, YEAH, WE RECEIVED A, UM, SIGNED AFFIDAVIT ON FRIDAY AFTER WE POSTED THE AGENDA, SO IT WAS TOO LATE TO, UH, AMEND THE AGENDA AND REPOST.
DO WE WANNA JUMP AHEAD TO THE RETURNING CASE? EIGHT, SINCE WE HAVE ONE PERSON HERE FOR THAT.
ANY OBJECTIONS? COMMISSIONERS? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYONE HERE EXCEPT FOR CASE EIGHT ON ROSEWOOD.
WE'LL MOVE AHEAD TO ITEM EIGHT.
ALRIGHT, CHAIR, THANK YOU FOR BEARING WITH US.
[8. Case Number: CL 2015-121990 ]
THE AGENDA IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 ROSEWOOD AVENUE.THE CASE NUMBER CL 2 15 1 12 1 9 9 0.
THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER FOR REPAIR FOR THIS PROPERTY AT ITS OCTOBER 15, 20, UM, EXCUSE ME, OCTOBER, 2015 MEETING PROPERTY ORDER HAS ACHIEVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDER AND NOW WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING RELIEF OF THE ACCRUED PENALTIES.
THE, UM, THIS CASE CAN BE FOUND IN YOUR PLUM COLORED BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOLD DRIVE FOLDER.
YOU'LL SEE TWO EXHIBITS, ONE FROM THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER AND ONE FROM THE CITY.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THIS CASE.
THIS CASE WAS FIRST REPORTED TO THE CITY OF AUSTIN AS A COMPLAINT OF STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE ISSUES.
AN ORDER WAS ISSUED IN THE CASE FOR REPAIR WITHIN 60 DAYS, WITH A CIVIL PENALTY OF $500 PER WEEK BEGINNING ON THE 61ST DAY.
IF COMPLIANCE WAS NOT ACHIEVED, THE CIVIL PENALTY, THE TOTAL CIVIL PENALTY AS OF TODAY'S DATE, IS $36,372 AND 37 CENTS, WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST ACCRUED FROM THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE THROUGH THE DATE OF TODAY'S MEETING.
IN YOUR READER IN GOOGLE FOLDER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING, THE CITY'S EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH CONSISTS OF AN UPDATED COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY, A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, NOTICE FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING, PROOFS OF MAILING AND THE REQUIRED POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE RECORDED BUILDING BSC ORDER ISSUED OCTOBER 28TH, 2015, AND CORRESPONDING PENALTY STATEMENT CITY'S POST ORDER CORRESPONDENCE IN THIS CASE AS WELL AS THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATION CODE INSPECTOR FARRA PRESLEY'S HERE TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THE CORRECTED VIOLATIONS AND TIMELINE FOR COMPLIANCE CODE INSPECTOR PRESLEY, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
MY NAME IS FARRAH PRESLEY AND I'M THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CASE REVIEW AND ESCALATIONS TEAM WITH THE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT FORTH TODAY IS 2100 ROSEWOOD AVENUE.
THIS CASE STARTED ON 1 30 20 15 WITH A COMPLAINT TO 3 1 1 FOR STRUCTURAL MAINTENANCE ISSUES, UNSAFE AND DANGEROUS FALLING DOWN FENCE ROTTED WOOD AND FOUNDATION ISSUES WITH SEVERAL INSPECTIONS AND TALKS WITH THE OWNER OF THE CASE WASN'T RESOLVED AND WAS SENT TO BSC ON OCTOBER, 2015, THE OWNER AFTER BSC ON MARCH 12TH, 2016, REMOVED THE WALL.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR ON THIS CASE STATED THE OWNER HAD TWO OPTIONS.
[01:30:01]
NEW RETAINING WALL WITH PERMITS ARE A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION TO REMOVE CONCRETE FROM GRADE AND INSTALL NEW SOIL AND GRASS.THE OWNER SOLD THE PROPERTY IN MAY OF 2016 TO THIRD ANGLE INVESTMENTS, LLC WITHOUT INSTALLING A NEW RETAINING WALL PERMITS FOR THE NEW RETAINING WALL WERE REQUIRED ON MAY 18TH, 2016 BY THE NEW OWNER.
ON AUGUST 31ST, 2016, THE LETTER OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WAS SENT OUT STATING FINES ARE NOW OVER $17,000 AND STILL ACQUIRING PLUS INTEREST.
WHEN THE BSE ORDER WAS ISSUED IN OCTOBER OF 2015, THE ORDER REQUIRED THE OWNER TO REPAIR WITHIN 60 DAYS OR TO BE SUBJECT TO $500 PER WEEK IN PENALTIES.
THE NEW OWNER THIRD ANGLE INVESTMENTS LLC ACHIEVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE BSC ORDER WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER OBTAINING THE PROPERTY ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2016 WAS WHEN THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE RETRAINING WALL PAST FINAL INSPECTION.
THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
STAFF STAFF ASKS 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 THE 2015 RECORDED ORDER AND PENALTY STATEMENT POST ORDER CORRESPONDENCE AND RECOMMENDATION.
STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE FOLLOWING.
NUMBER ONE, AFFIRM THE CIVIL PENALTY OF $36,372 AND 37 CENTS ASSESSED FROM THE ORDER ISSUED OCTOBER 28TH, 2015, AND RECORDED AS T RV 2 0 1 5 1 7 7 7 6 5.
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, IF THE CIVIL PENALTY IS REDUCED, ALLOW 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE AN AMENDED ORDER IS MAILED TO PAY THE CIVIL PENALTY IN FULL AT THE REDUCED AMOUNT AND THREE ON THE 31ST DAY FROM THE DATE THE AMENDED ORDER IS MAILED.
IF THE REDUCED PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL REINSTATE, THE UNPAID PORTION OF THE REMAINING CIVIL PENALTY INTEREST SHALL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL.
AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO, UH, STATE THAT UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS SUCH AN OLD CASE THAT WE HAD NO, UH, PREVIOUS EXHIBIT AND, UH, ALL THAT WE REALLY HAD WAS THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WAS IN THE REMAINING IN THE, UM, IN OUR DATABASE OF RECORD FILE.
WE'LL ACCEPT, UH, I'M SORRY, ADOPT THE CITY'S EXHIBIT THREE AND FOUR AND THE OWNER'S EXHIBITS.
YOU'RE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? UH, YES SIR.
I, I AM THE, UH, I'VE BEEN THE OWNER FROM SINCE, UH, MAY, 2016.
I'VE REPRESENTED BOTH GROUPS ACTUALLY.
AM I OKAY TO BEGIN? YOU CAN PROCEED, YES.
UM, SO THIS PROPERTY, THE ORIGINAL VIOLATION CAME FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER.
UH, THAT OWNER THEN GAVE IT TO A WHOLESALER, WHICH THEN BROUGHT IT TO ME TO, TO BUILD ON IT.
UH, I ORIGINALLY WENT WITH THE IDEA I WAS GONNA DO MULTIPLE UNITS ON IT BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY ZONED MULTI-FAMILY.
UH, BUT THEN I ORIGINALLY THERE WAS SOME SITE PLAN ISSUES BECAUSE OF ALAMO STREET NOT BEING 25 FEET.
SO I WENT AHEAD AND BUILT A DUPLEX THERE AND WE'VE LEFT THE THIRD LOT EMPTY, WELL, SINCE THE NEW, WE HAVE THE NEW HOUSING ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, IT GAVE ME THE ABILITY TO NOW DEVELOP THE THIRD, THE, THE SECOND PIECE OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, AND SO THAT'S WHY I JUST KIND OF CAME BACK.
IT'S JUST KIND OF SAT THERE STAGNANT.
AND THIS IS WHEN I FOUND OUT RECENTLY, UH, PULLING TITLE SEARCH THAT I REALIZED THAT THIS IS STILL OUTSTANDING.
AGAIN, THE PREVIOUS OWNER WAS THE ONE THAT WAS NAMED ON THAT STUFF.
AND SO WHEN I ORIGINALLY, AND AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER FROM 10 YEARS AGO, GUYS, SO TRUST ME, I'M, I'M DOING THE SAME AS YOU GUYS.
UH, BUT WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, WE DID GET A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND THEN WE DID A CUT AND FILL TO, TO GIVE IT A SLOPE THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE BY THE CITY.
UH, WE DID THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT ANOTHER RETAINING WALL BECAUSE WE KNEW THE NEW BUILDING WOULD BE THE RETAINING WALL, YOU KNOW, THE NEW STRUCTURE.
SO THEN WE GET A PERMIT, WE BUILD THE STRUCTURE, I REFINANCED IT IN 2017.
I SOLD THE TWO UNITS IN 2018 IN ALL THOSE, IN ANY TITLE SEARCH DURING THAT TIME, NONE OF THIS PULLED UP DURING THAT TIME ALSO.
SO I, I WAS, AGAIN, NOT AWARE AND THIS HAS JUST SAT THERE FOR, I DON'T KNOW, YEARS WAITING TO DECIDE IF I COULD DEVELOP IT OR NOT.
AGAIN, I WAS HAVING ISSUES WITH SITE PLAN.
I WOULD TRY TO GO FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS.
IT WAS BECAUSE ALMA STREET WHERE THE ADDITIONAL, IT'S A CORNER LOT WHERE THE ADDITIONAL UNITS WOULD BE WASN'T 25 FOOT WIDE.
SO I WASN'T ABLE TO GET THE PERMIT APPROVED TO DO THAT.
UM, SO AGAIN, I, I DO KNOW THAT AT ONE POINT THERE WAS AN ISSUE, I DO KNOW I RECTIFIED
[01:35:01]
IT, I BUILT IT TWO NEW UNITS AND I'VE JUST STEPPED AWAY.AND AGAIN, IT'S JUST BEEN OCCURRING FOR THIS WHOLE TIME AND NOTHING HAS BEEN SENT TO ME DIRECTLY.
I DON'T HAVE ANY MAILERS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST KIND OF BAD TIMING, BUT BASICALLY THAT'S JUST KIND OF THE STORY OF THIS WHOLE PROJECT.
I DO WANT TO BUILD THE OTHER TWO UNITS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, UH, MY NEXT STEP IS TO GET FINANCING TO BUILD THEM.
BUT AGAIN, I'VE JUST KIND OF GOT THIS LINGERING OVER MY HEAD AT A PRETTY LARGE SUM RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONER'S QUESTIONS? I DIDN'T HEAR A REQUEST THERE.
MY REQUEST IS TO REDUCE THIS FIRE
YOU KNOW, IT WAS PUT BACK INTO, WE, WE DEMOLITION IT, IT WAS SOLD IN 2018.
SO, YOU KNOW, IN ALL THAT TIME THIS, THIS LOT HAS BEEN IN COMPLIANCE.
IT'S JUST WHERE THE FINES HAVE BEEN.
I HAVE NOT SEEN THEM AND THEY HAVEN'T POPPED UP ON ANY TITLE SEARCH IN 2017.
IN 2018 WHEN WE SOLD THE UNITS.
SO QUESTION FOR STAFF, I MEAN, SO THIS WAS IN 2015.
WAS THE PERMIT FINALIZED? WHEN WAS THAT? YES.
WHEN, WHEN WAS THAT FINALIZED? WHEN, WHEN THEY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY? IT WAS SIX, UH, FINALIZED, SIX MONTHS LATER.
SO IT WAS A, IT WAS FINALIZED ON, UH, SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2016.
SO IT CAME INTO COMPLIANCE SIX MONTHS LATER? YES.
WHY IS, WHY IS THIS FINE HIS, IF IT WAS FOR THE PREVIOUS OWNER VIOLATION? BECAUSE THE VIOLATIONS GO WITH THE PROPERTY, NOT WITH THE OWNER.
THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT.
SO THERE'S A LIEN RIGHT NOW ON THAT PROPERTY? YES.
AND SO, OH, OH, THERE'S NO, HOW WAS HE ABLE TO SELL IT WITH A LIEN THERE? THERE'S NO LIEN.
SO, WELL ACTUALLY THE TITLE ORIGINALLY DID PULL IN THERE, ENDED UP BEING A LIEN, BUT THEN IT, I CALLED YOU GUYS AND IT GOT REMOVED.
THIS TIME I DON'T KNOW HOW I DID.
YEAH, BUT THE MINUTE I BROUGHT IT UP, YOU GUYS CORRECTED THAT.
BUT THAT'S, AGAIN, THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I NOTICED IT.
IT, IT'S AN ORDER ON THE DEED, BUT THERE IS NO LIEN.
I I HAVE AN EMAIL AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT GOT TO YOU GUYS, IF YOU DON'T MIND REAL QUICK.
IT SAID, AND IT WAS FROM, UH, JAMES AL AND IT SAYS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORDER OF PENALTIES ISSUED.
I THOUGHT YOU SHOULD CHECK DA DA DA.
I FOUND SOME CORRESPONDENCE, BUT IT, HE DOES STATE HERE.
I BELIEVE THE CIVIL PENALTY WAS MISSTATING AND IT SHOULDN'T BE A LIEN.
BUT I HAVE AN EMAIL AGAIN WHERE THEY MENTIONED THAT AGAIN, IT WAS BY ACCIDENT AND AGAIN, IT, YOU GUYS TOOK CARE OF IT IMMEDIATELY, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THE PENALTY UNTIL THAT POPPED UP.
SO IS IT POSSIBLE TO THE STAFF THAT IT WAS ACCRUED? 'CAUSE YOU SAID YOU LEFT THAT THERE'S THREE LOTS AND YOU LEFT THIS ONE LOT BASICALLY UNTOUCHED AND THIS RETAINING WALL TOUCHES THIS LOT.
IS THAT, IS THAT BECAUSE THE PENALTIES ATTACHED TO THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL? I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS HOW IT WOULDN'T HAVE COME UP IN, IN 17 THAT IS BEYOND ME.
WHY THE TITLE COMPANY DID NOT FIND IT WHEN, BACK WHEN HE WAS, YOU KNOW, DOING, DOING HIS DEAL IN 2016 AND 17.
I I'M, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT IT OVER THE PHONE.
I I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT EITHER.
AND IT, THE WHOLE LOT WAS CUT BACK AND GRADED.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE, AND THAT OTHER SIDE HAS BEEN CUT AND GRADED AT THE SAME TIME.
SO IS THIS A SINGLE LEGAL LOT? YES.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WOULDN'T SEE IT IN A TITLE SEARCH IF IT'S, IF IT'S ON, ON A PORTION OR A SEPARATE LEGAL LOT THAT THAT RIGHT.
OTHERWISE TITLE, IT'S GONNA SHOW UP.
COMPANY ISSUE COULD BE, THEY MAY HAVE MADE A MISTAKE.
COULD BE IF YOU GOT A LAWYER, I'D
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER ISSUES.
I MEAN, YOU'RE, I AGREE WITH YOU.
YOU KNOW, AND, AND THAT'S ANOTHER, A ROUTE I'M TRYING TO DO, BUT I'M ALSO TRYING EVERY AVENUE I CAN WELL IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, PULLED, GOT THE ORDER SIX MONTHS LATER CAME INTO COMPLIANCE, RIGHT? YES.
THEY WENT OUT, THEY REINSPECTED THE ISSUE WENT AWAY IN SIX MONTHS.
IT'S JUST KIND OF BEEN RUNNING IN THE BACKGROUND YEAH.
FOR WHATEVER CLERICAL ISSUES, COMPLICATED THINGS, BUT IT'S BEEN RESOLVED, SO YEAH, THE VIOLATION IS GONE LIKE OKAY, 10 YEARS AGO,
ALRIGHT, WELL THAT'S WHAT WE'D LIKE TO HEAR.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE A MOTION? OKAY, YOU WANT THIS? IT'S ON THE
I'M NOT SURE IF WE, UM, IF Y'ALL GOT TO SEE THE, UM, PROPERTY OWNER'S EXHIBIT.
AND, UH, AND DID YOU, I DIDN'T NOTE THAT IF YOU
[01:40:01]
ADMITTED IT OR NOT.I THINK WE DID ADMIT THE, THE OWNERS.
COMMISSIONER, SOMEBODY HAVE A MOTION.
YEAH, I HAVE A MOTION I MOVE TO ADOPT THE STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MOVE TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING IN LIEU OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDED ORDER.
I THINK THAT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY THESE AT ALL.
SO YOU WOULD WALK OUT, RUNS HIS LAND, BUT THEY ARE HIS, SO, SO YOUR MOTION IS TO ZERO THAT OUT? YES.
IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE WERE LOTS OF ERRORS HERE AND THERE AND CLERICAL ERRORS AND, RIGHT.
IS THERE A SECOND FOR DISCUSSION? SECOND FOR DISCUSSION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARZA, GIVEN THE ISSUE OF THE NEXT QUESTION ALWAYS IS WHAT, HOW WOULD WE RATE THIS CASE ON THAT? I WOULD SAY LOW COMPLEXITY.
THERE'S, I MEAN THE CITY'S STANDPOINT I THINK IS, IT IS JUST A BIZARRE, YOU KNOW, DEAL TO HAPPEN.
BUT I MEAN, THERE WAS PENALTIES THAT CRUDE FOR A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME.
USUALLY WHEN SOMEONE DOES THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, UH, NOT SAYING HE DIDN'T, BUT IT COMES UP ON A TITLE REPORT AND THEN WHENEVER THE NEGOTIATIONS HAPPEN BETWEEN THE SALE AND THE BUY OF THE PROPERTY, THEY'RE IN THE KNOW.
AND THAT'S KIND OF TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THINGS CHANGE HANDS.
OBVIOUSLY I BELIEVE HIM, HE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
UM, I'LL JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY OBVIOUSLY TRIES TO PROTECT THE TIME AND ENERGY AND TAXPAYER MONEY THAT WENT IN RESOURCES THAT WENT INTO, UH, WORKING THIS CASE.
SO I MEAN, WE, WE WOULD TAKE THE LOW COMPLEXITY STANCE, BUT AGAIN, IT'S UP TO Y'ALL AND THAT WHAT WAS I DON'T HAVE THAT.
IT, IT'S AROUND THE FIVE TO $6,000 MARK THAT JUST COVERS THE CITY'S EXPENSES RELATED.
I, I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD IN THE PROPERTY OWNER'S EXHIBIT, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE SOME OFFSET FEES THAT I DID THE MATH ON.
IT'S ABOUT $13,600 IN OFFSET THAT THEY, UH, THE OWNERS CAN CLAIM TO REDUCE WHATEVER PENALTY.
IS IT HOMESTEAD? NO, IT'S, DOES THAT APPLY HERE OR IS THAT NOT GONNA WORK? IT WOULDN'T APPLY.
WELL, WE JUST, WE, UM, THAT WOULDN'T APPLY.
WE, WE WERE, WE NEVER, UM, SUBSTANTIATED THAT.
SO IT'S JUST, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ASKED FOR THOSE RECEIPTS TO BE TURNED IN, BUT WE ACTUALLY NEVER REVIEWED THEM.
UM, I MEAN, GIVEN THAT IT'S, UH, TESTIMONY UNDER OATH, I, I SUPPOSE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD ASK DIRECTLY AND HE COULD GIVE YOU AN ANSWER.
IS THIS YOUR HOMESTEAD? NO, IT'S NOT A HOMESTEAD.
BUT I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHERE IT SAYS FEES TO PAY OFF AT PROVISION, THOSE WERE ALL FEES THAT WE PAID TO THE CITY FOR THE DEMO PERMITS AND ALL THE SURE.
THAT'S ALL THOSE ARE, THAT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT I'M SAYING THAT I PAID DIFFERENTLY.
THOSE ARE JUST CITY FEES THAT WERE PAID TO DO THE WORK THAT WAS COMPLETED.
I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
SO EVEN, UH, SO JUST FOR PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION, IF WE ACCEPT THAT THESE, UH, THESE FEES AND, UH, THEIR ACCOUNTING OF THEM, EVEN IF WE, UH, ASSESS A FINE OF ABOUT 6,000 TO COVER THE CITY'S COSTS, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WOULD BE OFFSET HERE.
AND SO HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING IF THESE OFF OFFSET FEES DO APPLY.
WELL, THE OFFSETTING DOESN'T APPLY HERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A HOMESTEAD.
ON REAL QUICK, IT IT, YOU SAID IT WAS, UH, AS RESIDENTIAL, WAS IT ZONED? UH, THE, THE BUILDING THAT WE PUT THERE WAS A DUPLEX, THE EXISTING WALL.
SO IT'S RESIDENTIAL, THEY WOULD APPLY, BUT AN OFFSET IS, I MEAN, THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS 36,000.
SO IF WE'RE OFFSETTING IT, WE WOULD REDUCE 13 AND THEN THAT'S OUR NUMBER.
SO I MEAN, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? OKAY.
LIKE 13 MINUS, I MEAN 36 MINUS 13 ISH MM-HMM
BUT I MEAN, SO IT WOULD GET US DOWN.
I'M I'M TALKING ABOUT EVEN IF WE DID ULTIMATELY REDUCE, UH, EITHER TO ZERO OR TO FIVE OR 6,000 TO COVER THE LOW COMPLEXITY THEN, BUT I, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IF WE REDUCE THE, THE PENALTY, WILL THE, THE OFFSET FEES THEN COME IN AS WELL? NO.
I MEAN, WE, WE'RE TAKING THIS INTO CONSIDERATION RIGHT NOW.
I MEAN, HOWEVER Y'ALL WANNA DO IT, YOU KNOW, IS UP TO Y'ALL.
UH, I THINK THEN, YOU KNOW, FOR PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION, I'M, I'M, I'M OKAY WITH REDUCING THE FINE, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY GETS THEIR RESOURCES BACK.
'CAUSE THERE WAS A VIOLATION THAT WAS ACTIVE.
YOU KNOW, I'M THINKING ABOUT KIND OF LIKE THE PRINCIPLE PRINCIPLE'S REEL.
AND SO I, I WOULD, UH, I DO AGREE A REDUCTION'S, UH, FAIR, BUT I, I WOULD WANNA SEE AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT OF OF MONEY GO BACK TO THE CITY.
DID WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED.
[01:45:01]
THERE IS A MOTION THAT WAS SECONDED CORRECT ON THE TABLE, WHICH IS TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND TO, IN LIEU OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER TO ZERO OUT THE PENALTIES.SO THAT IS THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.
IF SOMEONE HAS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT CHAIR THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE, THEY MAY DO.
SO OTHERWISE WE WOULD CALL A VOTE CHAIR.
DO YOU WANNA JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE THAT DOWN AND THEN JUST COME BACK WITH A FRESH MOTION RATHER THAN TRYING TO, UH, THAT'S YOUR CALL CHAIR AND IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION.
UH, COMMISSIONER SOAD, BUT THIS IS JUST FOR SAKE OF DISCUSSION.
I WASN'T, I WASN'T, UH, LOOKING TO AMEND, UH, BUT JUST I, I I SORT OF WANTED TO SECOND, UH, COMMISSIONER VIC'S, UH, SENTIMENTS.
UH, I, I AGREE THAT THIS IS AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE AND SOME PENALTY RELIEF IS WARRANTED, BUT I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M SORT OF, OF THE MIND THAT I DON'T WANNA GO TO ZERO.
UH, YOU, WE WANT TO COVER THE CITY'S COST.
SO, SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE COMMISSIONER TVI WAS GOING.
AND JUST FOR SAKE OF THE MAKER OF THE MAIN MOTION, IF YOU'RE COUNTING THOSES, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK I COULD, I COULD VOTE OUT IT.
VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT IN HIS CURRENT FORM.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION.
LET'S VOTE ON THE FIRST MOTION WAS TO ZERO OUT, UH, BY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ.
IS THERE A REFRESH MOTION THEN? UH, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF LAW OR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
AND IN LIEU OF, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION TO ASSESS A FINE OF $6,000 MOTION BE MADE BY SECOND COMMISSIONER TOM LOVICH, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER UHTO.
COMMISSIONER AND, UH, CHAIR VOTES.
[6. Case Number: CL 2026-010855 ]
TO SIX.ITEM NUMBER SIX ON THE AGENDA.
THIS CASE NUMBER CL 2 26 0 1 0 8 5 5 AND IS REGARDING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 1 0 0 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ STREET.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE AGENDA HAS THIS ITEM LISTED AS 2100 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ AVENUE, BUT IT IS IN FACT STREET.
THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE PLUM COLORED BOOKS IN YOUR READERS IN GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS CASE IS ABOUT A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE THAT IS UNOCCUPIED.
THIS CASE WAS OPENED IN OCTOBER, 2025 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT.
THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY RELATED TO THE CITED VIOLATIONS.
THE STRUCTURE IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE REPAIR.
IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU WILL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY.
THE COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD.
IT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS.
AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO E AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INSPECTOR SHEILA DOYLE IS CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE AND IS HERE TO TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.
INSPECTOR DOYLE, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
MY NAME IS SHEILA DOYLE AND I AM A INSPECTOR FOR THE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CODE COMPLIANCE.
THE PROPERTY BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS 7 8 7 0 2.
THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS POLYGAMY HOTEL LLC
[01:50:01]
ON OCTOBER THE SIXTH, 2025, AUSTIN CODE COMPLIANCE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE LO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ STREET VIA 3 1 1.ON OCTOBER 7TH, 2025, I PERFORMED AN INSPECTION AND OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS.
THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM UTILITY SERVICE, IT'S GRAFFITI, AND IS ABANDONED AND IS IN A STATE OF CONTINUED DETERIORATION AND DISREPAIR.
I OBSERVED AN ACCUMULATION OF TRASH, RUBBISH BRUSH, AND DEBRIS ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS ABANDONED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN LEFT OPEN OR HAS BEEN, HAS BECOME OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE THROUGH UNSECURED DOORS AND WINDOWS.
SQUATTER AND VAGRANT ACTIVITY HAVE BEEN OBSERVED ACTIVELY ON THE PROPERTY.
THE STRUCTURE IS NEGLECTED, DAMAGED, DILAPIDATED, ABANDONED, AND HAS BEEN LEFT UNSECURED.
THE STRUCTURE HAS BECOME AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE FOR VAGRANT ACTIVITY, CRIMINALS AND PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
THERE HAVE BEEN 11 COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY, 2025 FOR THIS PROPERTY.
ON OCTOBER 10TH, 2025, I DOCUMENTED THE CASE AND MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE REGISTERED AGENT DETAILING THE DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATIONS OBSERVED.
I PERFORMED MONTHLY FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS TO MONITOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2025, A FOLLOW UP INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED AND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WAS FOUND TO BE OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE.
THE CITY CONTRACTOR WAS DISPATCHED TO THE PROPERTY TO BOARD AND SECURE ONE DOOR AND ONE WINDOW.
ON OCTOBER 21ST, 2025, THE CITY CONTRACTOR WAS DISPATCHED TO ABATE THE PROPERTY OF ALL TRASH, RUBBISH BRUSH AND DEBRIS.
THE PROPERTY WAS CUT AND CLEANED AND 15 CUBIC YARDS OF TRASH, RUBBISH AND DEBRIS WERE ABATED.
ON DECEMBER 30TH, 2025, A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED AND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WAS FOUND OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE, CONTACTED THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEY HAD THE PROPERTY BOARDED AND SECURED SECURE.
ON FEBRUARY THE FIFTH, 2026, I PERFORMED A FOLLOW UP INSPECTION AND OBSERVED CUMULATION OF TRASH, RUBBISH, AND DEBRIS ON THE PROPERTY.
I ISSUED AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER DUE TO THE UNSANITARY CONDITIONS ON SITE.
ON FEBRUARY THE 19TH, 2026, I PERFORMED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND OBSERVED THAT THE VIOLATIONS HAD NOT BEEN CORRECTED.
THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE REMAINS ABANDONED AND IN A CONTINUED STATE OF DISREPAIR, THERE ARE NO PENDING OR ACTIVE PERMITS ON FILE FOR THE NECESSARY REPAIRS.
I AM ESCALATING THIS CASE FORWARD DUE TO THE OWNER NOT RECTIFYING THE VIOLATIONS.
I WILL NOW PRESENT PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS PRE DEPICTED.
PHOTO TWO A IS AT THE FRONT PRIMARY OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
THE EXTERIOR SIDING IS ROTTED, HAS HOLES AND IS NOT PROPERLY SURFACE COATED TO PREVENT FURTHER DETERIORATION.
PHOTO TWO B IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
THE FACIAL BOARDS ARE WEATHERED WITH CHIPPING AND FLAKING PAINT EVIDENT.
THERE ARE NUMEROUS HOLES AND GAPS IN THE EXTERIOR WALLS.
NEXT ONE, PHOTO TWO C IS OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
[01:55:01]
THE ROOFTOP IS IN DISREPAIR.THE LARGE SECTIONS OF SHINGLE MISSING OR ROTTED AWAY.
THE ROOF DECKING IS ALSO ROTTED AND IN DISREPAIR.
PHOTO 2D IS OF THE NORTH SIDE OR BACK OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
PIECES OF THE EXTERIOR SIDING HAVE BROKEN OFF, EXPOSING THE STRUCTURE TO THE NATURAL ELEMENTS AND THE FACIA BOARDS OR WEATHER DETERIORATED AND NOT PROPERLY SURFACE COATED.
PHOTO TWO E IS AT THE BACK OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
THIS IS AN OPENING IN THE FOUNDATION SKIRT SKIRTING THAT MAY ALLOW PESTS AND RODENTS TO ENTER THE BUILDING.
THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
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 UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD 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 TWO.
E STAFF ALSO REQUESTS THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING.
NUMBER ONE, WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.
B, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
C REQUEST INSPECTION FROM 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.
UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OBJECTION, WE'LL, UH, ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO E COMMISSIONERS.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, HAVE YOU MADE CONTACT WITH THE OWNER AT ALL? YES.
UM, I MADE CONTACT WITH THE OWNER EVERY TIME THERE WAS A UNSECURED DOOR, WINDOW OR ABATEMENT WOULD HAPPEN.
UM, I WOULD GIVE THEM A CALL IF THEY DID OR I WOULD CALL EMAIL.
IF THEY DIDN'T ANSWER, I WOULD GO BY THEIR BUILDING.
UM, A WHERE THEY, UM, HOUSE THEIR REAL ESTATE BUSINESS.
I'M SORRY, BUT YES, I'VE, I'VE CONSTANT, WE'VE BEEN IN CONSTANT, UM, COMMUNICATION AND THEN LATELY THEY STOPPED HELPING AND STOPPED GOING OUT WHEN I WOULD REQUEST SOMETHING.
SO THEY ARE, UM, RESPONDING TO YOUR REQUEST LIKE THEY'RE DOING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE ASKED? THEY WERE IN THE BEGINNING.
DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT YOU, THE CITY WENT AND HAD TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY IN A HAUL AWAY OF 15 YARDS OF MATERIAL? YES SIR.
AT WHAT COST? UM, THAT COST US BETWEEN THE ABATEMENT AND THE BOARD.
IT COST US AROUND A THOUSAND DOLLARS.
SURPRISED YOU GOT IT DONE THAT CHEAPLY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.
WANNA GET THAT DOWN? COMMISSIONER GILKER.
COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE A MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN? COMMISSIONER SOAD? UH, I GUESS JUST TO GET US STARTED, I'LL MOVE TO REC, UH, MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S, UH, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY.
[02:00:01]
SO MOTIONS ARE SECOND.ANY DISCUSSION? ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER GILKER.
WE'RE MOVING ON TO CASE SEVEN.
PLEASE PRESENT YOUR MA MATERIAL.
[7. Case Number: CL 2025-135581 ]
THE AGENDA IS A RETURNING CASE, CL 20 25 1 3 5 5 8 1 AND IS REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 0 1 5 PAYNE AVENUE.STAFF EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE BRIGHT RED BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE.
THIS IS A RETURNING CASE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION IN JULY OF 2020, UH, WITH A NEW CASE OPENED IN MAY OF 2024 AS A RESULT OF A NEW COMPLAINT.
THIS CASE IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WITH MULTIPLE UNITS.
THE COMMISSION ISSUED AN ORDER FOR REPAIR WITHIN 45 DAYS WITH A PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK TO BEGIN TO ACCRUE.
ON THE 46TH DAY OF REPAIRS WERE NOT COMPLETED.
NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THE BSC ORDER WAS ISSUED IN 2020.
AS OF TODAY'S DATE, THE ACCRUED CIVIL PENALTY IS $284,428 AND 57 CENTS AND CONTINUES TO ACCRUE THE STRUCTURE.
REMAINS IN THE STRUCTURES REMAIN IN DISREPAIR, CREATE A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE, AND ARE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.
WE ARE NOW RECOMMENDING MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING ORDER TO INCLUDE DEMOLITION OF THE, OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND CARPORT WITH THE CURRENT PENALTIES ON THE FRONT STRUCTURE IN PLACE IN YOUR READER OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER.
YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO M EXHIBIT THREE, 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, POSTINGS OF POSTINGS, EXCUSE ME, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS.
A COPY OF THE EXISTING BSC ORDER RECORDED AS T RV 2 0 2 0 1 5 0 503 AND A PENALTY STATEMENT THROUGH TODAY'S DATE.
AND EXHIBIT FOUR, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR J AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE INVESTIGATOR FARRAH PRESLEY AND CODE SUPERVISOR DAVID DOWNING ARE HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED.
INVESTIGATOR PRESLEY, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY.
UH, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS FARRAH PRESLEY AND I'M THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CASE REVIEW AND ESCALATION TEAM WITH AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
THE PROPERTY 2015 PAIN AVENUE IS BEING BROUGHT FORTH TONIGHT TO DO TO THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE ON SITE.
THE MAIN STRUCTURE IS AN AGE CASE.
I'VE HAD THIS CASE SINCE JULY OF 2020.
THE OWNER DID NOT SHOW AT BSE AT THAT TIME AS WELL WHILE UNDER A BSE ORDER, NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE, NO ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT THE CODE DEPARTMENT OR TO OBTAIN ANY PERMITS FOR REPAIR.
CONCERNING THE SECOND STRUCTURE SUPERVISOR, DAVID DOWNING WILL PRESENT THAT CASE.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU FOR HEARING THIS CASE.
2015 PAYNE AVENUE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OF SIMILAR HOMES.
ONE BLOCK EAST OF BURNETT ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF BURNETT LANE.
BRENTWOOD ELEMENTARY AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ARE TWO BLOCKS AWAY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY.
CODE HAS RECEIVED 10 NEIGHBORHOOD 3 1 1 CALLS ABOUT THIS VACANT PROPERTY SINCE THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT THAT GENERATED AND RESULTED IN A BSE ORDER.
CASE NOTES SHOW THAT THERE'S AN ONGOING HISTORY OF VIOLATION AT THE SITE.
THE CASES HAVE DOCUMENTED NO ACTION BY THE OWNER, NO REPLY BY THE OWNER TO ANY NOTICE OR POSTING.
THE PROPERTY HAS TWO DWELLINGS AND THEY'RE CONNECTED BY A PORCH ROOF WITH OPEN WALLS.
THE PORCH ROOF IS BADLY DETERIORATED AND NOT STRUCTURALLY
[02:05:01]
SOUND.THE WOODEN GAZEBO IS ALSO IN THE BACKYARD AND BADLY DETERIORATED.
UM, NEITHER OF THOSE STRUCTURES ARE SALVAGEABLE AND EACH CREATES A FIRE HAZARD.
THE REAR DWELLING IS A CONVERSION OF THE ORIGINAL DETACHED GARAGE ON THE SITE.
IT WAS COMPLIANT WITH THE APPROVAL OF A 1981 PERMIT FOR CONVERSION TO A DWELLING, BUT THE STRUCTURE WAS LATER MODIFIED SIGNIFICANTLY, AND WE CAN SEE IT IN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS BETWEEN 84 AND 97.
AND NONE OF THAT WORK HAD ANY PERMITS.
UM, THE REAR DWELLING IS CURRENTLY AN ILLEGAL STRUCTURE SINCE THE REAR STRUCTURE WAS COMPLETED AFTER 1984 IS BADLY DETERIORATED AND CREATES AN INVITATION TO NUISANCE.
IT IS ADVISABLE THAT IT BE DEMOLISHED ALONG WITH THE PORCH ROOF GAZEBO.
UM, OTHER MATERIALS ON THE SITE BE REMOVED SO THAT NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AT THE SITE.
UM, IT'LL LEAVE THE ONLY THE SINGLE FAMILY BUNGALOW WITH NOTHING ELSE TO DETRACT FROM ITS PRESERVATION.
PHOTOS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR J ARE RECENT FROM THE SITE VISIT.
SO FOUR A, THIS IS PUBLIC VIEW FROM PAYNE AVENUE.
UM, YOU SEE THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE AND THEN FURTHER BACK ON THE DRIVEWAY, YOU'LL SEE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
THAT'S A CONVERTED GARAGE, DETACHED GARAGE FOUR B.
SO THIS IS UP CLOSER TO THE CONVERTED GARAGE.
UM, AND YOU SEE THE PORCH ROOF ON THAT LEFT SIDE OF THE PHOTO, WHICH CONNECTS BACK TO THE MAIN HOUSE.
AND YOU CAN SEE EVERY SURFACE IS DETERIORATED.
FOUR C THIS IS THE CONNECTION OF THAT PORCH ROOF TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE ON THE LEFT IS, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINAL DWELL, ORIGINAL DWELLING, THE MAIN BUNGALOW.
AND EVERY ELEMENT OF THIS PORCH ROOF IS SIGNIFICANTLY DETERIORATED.
ALL THE CONNECTIONS ARE POOR, WILL GO TO FOUR D.
THIS IS UNDERNEATH THAT, UM, BREEZEWAY PORCH ROOF.
THE PREVIOUS TENANT IN THE REAR GARAGE MAY HAVE BEEN THERE WITH THE OWNER'S KNOWLEDGE, POSSIBLY WITHOUT.
AND THEY'VE GATHERED ALL THIS RUBBISH AND LEFT IT THERE AND HAD HANGING PLASTIC CURTAINS, OBSCURING IT FROM VIEW FOUR E.
UM, THIS IS THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR OF THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
PERIODICALLY WE VISIT THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, TRESPASSERS ARE POSSIBLY ENTERING THIS REAR DWELLING AND, BUT THEY WEREN'T THERE AT THIS TIME.
WE SAW DOG FOOD SCRUB SCATTERED AROUND, UM, OTHER WASTE IN THE HOUSE.
WE HAD A FOUR F THIS IS GOING DOWN THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE ACCESSORY GARAGE STRUCTURE ON THE LEFT.
AGAIN, EVERY SURFACE OF IT DETERIORATED.
YOU CAN LOOK UP TO THE ROOF AND IT'S, IT'S BADLY DETERIORATED.
WEATHER CONTINUES TO ERODE THIS PROPERTY SIGNIFICANTLY.
THIS IS THAT WINDOW THAT DID HAVE A WINDOW UNIT AIR CONDITIONER IN IT.
NOW IT'S JUST AN OPENING FOR RODENTS, PESTS, TRESPASSERS TO SNEAK IN AND OUT OF THE STRUCTURE.
THIS IS THE BACK DOOR OF THE GARAGE STRUCTURE AGAIN.
AND THIS IS LOOKING ACROSS THE BACKYARD.
YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, SPURIOUS LITTLE STRUCTURES AND RUBBISH LEFT AT THE SITE BY THAT GARAGE TENANT.
UM, AT THE BACKGROUND OF THE PHOTO IS THIS GAZEBO STRUCTURE.
UH, IT'S SO BADLY DETERIORATED.
IT'S MORE OF A COLLECTION OF RUBBISH THAN AN ACTUAL STRUCTURE.
NEXT PHOTO, UM, THAT'S THAT LITTLE GAZEBO KIT STRUCTURE UNSALVAGEABLE, AND WE'LL GO ONTO THE NEXT PHOTO.
WE CAN SEE THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE BEYOND TWO.
THAT'S SORT OF THE END OF OUR PHOTO EVIDENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN UNDER A BURDEN EVER SINCE THE LAST BOC ORDER.
UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, THEIR LIVING STANDARD HASN'T BEEN CORRECTED AS OF YET BY THIS OWNER.
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 DANGEROUS AND UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS.
STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBITS THREE AND FOUR CONSISTING OF EXHIBIT THREE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR J.
STAFF ALSO ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE.
[02:10:01]
FINDING TO FACT THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS CURRENT ORDER, TR RV 2 0 2 0 1 5 0 503 ON JULY 22ND, 2020.FINDING A FACT THIS ORDER HAS NOT, WAS NOT TIMELY APPEALED.
AND THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THE ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN APPEALED HAS LAPSED FINDING A FACT IN ITS CURRENT ORDER.
THE COMMISSION ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK TO BEGIN ON THE 46TH DAY FROM THE DATE THE ORDER WAS MAILED.
TO DATE, PENALTIES HAVE ACCRUED IN THE AMOUNT OF 2000, EXCUSE ME, $284,428 AND 57 CENTS AND CONTINUE TO ACCRUE AS OF THE DATE THE COMMISSION ISSUED THIS ORDER.
THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN VIOLATION.
STAFF ALS ASK THE COMMISSION TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS.
ONE ISSUE, A NEW ORDER THAT WILL SUPERSEDE THE PRIOR ORDER ISSUED ON JULY 22ND, 2020 AND RECORDED IS T RV 2 0 2 0 1 5 0 5 1 3 IN TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2020.
NUMBER TWO, AFFIRM THE CIVIL PENALTY OF $284,428 AND 57 CENTS ASSESSED FROM THE ORDER ISSUED JULY 22ND, 2020 AND INTEREST WILL NO LONGER CONTINUE TO ACCRUE.
NUMBER THREE, ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED.
A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMIT PERMITS.
B DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE REAR STRUCTURE AND CARPORT AND REMOVE HIS DEBRIS AND C REQUEST INSPECTION FROM AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THREE A AND THREE B FOUR ON THE 46 DAY.
IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, A AUTHORIZED THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION TO AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE REAR STRUCTURE AND CARPORT, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE REAR STRUCTURE AND CARPORT AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH.
PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES INCURRED AGAINST THE PROPERTY UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION.
A LIEN FOR THOSE EXPENSES MAY BE FILED BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND RECORDED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY DEED.
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 OF MICROPHONE.
WE'LL ADMIT IT'S THREE FOUR A THROUGH FOUR J.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I DO.
UM, I NOTICED THAT THE, THERE'S LETTERS THAT WENT OUT TO LOVELADY TRUST, CARNEY ROAD TRUST AND LINBERG PROPERTIES, OR IS THERE THREE DIFFERENT, IS THAT A QUESTION? YEAH, IT'S A QUESTION.
WHAT, WHAT WAS IT? WHO'S THE OWNER? UM, SO THE ADDITIONAL NAMES THAT CAME TO THE RECORD ARE FROM AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH BY EVERYONE INVOLVED, UM, TO FIND ANYONE MIGHT BE ATTACHED TO THIS PROPERTY.
THE RECORDED OWNER PROPERTY, THE RECORDED OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT TRAVIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT IS MOLEN BERG, LLC.
AND THAT'S AN ENTITY WE HAVE NO RESPONSE FROM IN THE FIVE OR SIX YEARS SINCE THE BSC ORDER AND ALL THE CASE WORK THAT PROCEEDED THAT ORDER.
SO THE LETTER'S BEEN THAT YOU'VE SENT OUT TO THEM TO LINBERG PROPERTIES? YES.
MANY POSTINGS AND LETTERS HAVE GONE OUT TO THEM ON THERE.
BUT DO YOU MAIL IT TO THEM ALSO? YES.
ALL THE, AND YOU'VE NEVER HAD ANY, ANY KIND OF CONTACT WITH THEM? NO RESPONSE EVER.
WHERE DID THESE OTHERS COME UP WITH? LOVE LADY TRUST AND CARNEY ROAD TRUST FROM THE DEED, THE TITLE, TITLE SEARCH.
AND TO ELABORATE ON THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT.
UM, THE, LET'S SEE, LEMME THINK THE, I BELIEVE THE TITLE SEARCH, UH, UNCOVERED A, UM, I, I WANNA SAY IT WAS AN AFFIDAVIT.
UM, BASICALLY THE, THE ONE OWNER IS, UM, I'M SORRY, THE MULLEN BIRD PROPERTIES.
LLC REGISTERED AGENT IS WILLIAM MULLEN BIRD.
AND SO WE DID SOME MORE DIGGING, UM, TRYING TO
[02:15:01]
FIND INFORMATION ABOUT THAT PERSON.AND UM, THE AFFIDAVIT WE FOUND WAS FILED BY, I THINK HIS, UH, WIFE OR, OR, OR, UH, FORMER WIFE, UH, WHICH STATED THAT SHE PUT HER INTEREST INTO THOSE TWO TRUSTS.
SO, SO YOU, YOU DID MAKE CONTACT WITH HER? UH, NEGATIVE.
WE, WE, UM, ONLY MAILED SOMETHING TO THE TRUSTS BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT SHE TURNED OVER HER INTEREST TO THE TRUSTS.
AND AND WHO TOLD YOU THAT? THE AFFIDAVIT.
BUT YOU WERE NEVER ABLE TO GET AHOLD OF HER OR ANYONE ELSE? I'M AFRAID NOT.
UM, YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO IS TO TERMINATE THE EXISTING REPAIR ORDER AND STOP IT ACCRUING INTEREST, BUT ONLY RECOMMENDING A DEMOLITION ORDER FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
WHAT ABOUT THE PRIMARY? SO I CAN ANSWER TO THIS ONE.
I THE PROPERTY FOR THE PRIMARY, IT HAS TWO THINGS WRONG WITH IT, AND THAT'S IT.
TO ME, THAT JUST DOESN'T JUSTIFY A, A DEMOLISH.
IT'S, UM, GOT A COUPLE OF FASCIA BOARD FALLEN OFF IN THE FRONT AND A, A BROKEN WINDOW.
UM, CAN I ASK A COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER KAR, UH, THERE'S NOBODY LIVING IN THE PRIMARY PROPERTY.
THERE HAS, SINCE I'VE HAD THIS CASE, THERE HAS BEEN NOBODY LIVING IN THE PRIMARY AND WE REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THE BACK STRUCTURE WAS ACTUALLY A, A, A A A TENANT THAT THE PERSON THAT OWNED THE PROPERTY EVEN KNEW ABOUT, IF IT'S LIKELY THAT THEY AREN'T GOING TO EVER MAKE CONTACT WITH A CURRENT OWNER.
IF IT HASN'T, AT LEAST SINCE THE FIVE AND A HALF YEARS SINCE IT'S BEEN OPEN, WOULD IT BE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO PUT A DEMOLITION ORDER ON ALL THREE OF THE BUILDINGS RATHER THAN DEMOLISHING TWO OF THE BACK ACCESSORY DWELLINGS NOW AND THEN DEMOLISHING THE PRIMARY BUILDING AT A LATER DATE? WHICH IS ALMOST CERTAINLY WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
WHAT DO YOU SEE COMING FROM SOMEBODY THAT REALLY DOESN'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD GO DO AWAY WITH LIVING IN, IN AUSTIN, ESPECIALLY A HOUSE THAT ONLY HAS TWO LITTLE TINY THINGS WRONG WITH IT? I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT IT'S DEMO WORTHY.
BUT IS THERE NO REPAIR ORDER THAT APPLIES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE THERE IS, THAT'S THE ONE THAT JAMES SAID IS THE FINES ARE UP TO $284,000.
BUT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO IS TO STOP THAT ACCRUING.
IN OTHER WORDS, HE'S GONNA, HE'S GONNA HAVE TO PAY THAT $284,000.
IF WE KEEP ACCRUING FINES ON THAT, IT'S GONNA BE WORTH, THE FINES ARE GONNA BE WORTH MORE THAN WHAT THE HOUSE ACTUALLY IS.
DOESN'T SOUND LIKE OUR PROBLEM, BUT
BUT AGAIN, I, I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY WE WOULD STOP THAT ACCRUAL IF WE'VE BEEN RUNNING IT FOR THIS MANY YEARS.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S NOT ANY KIND OF MOTIVATION.
AND I MEAN, REALISTICALLY, WE'RE NOT GONNA COLLECT $300 ON 300,000 ON THAT.
SO I, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROPERTY IS WORTH.
WELL, AT SOME POINT SOMEONE'S GONNA STEP FORWARD, RIGHT? YEAH.
THE TAXES DON'T GET PAID OR SOMETHING'S GONNA ACCELERATE.
SO, AND, AND MAYBE THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION.
ARE THE TAXES BEING PAID? UM, SO ACTUALLY THE, UM, TAXES ARE NOT UP TO DATE.
OH, HOW, HOW MANY YEARS? SO'S TAX LIEN TOO? UM, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I THINK THEY WERE IN ARREARS, UH, FOUR YEARS.
I BELIEVE YOU MAY NEVER FIND THE OTHER PLACE.
SO RIGHT AROUND THE TIME WE GOT THE CASE MYSTERIOUS, THE, UM, I, SOMETHING THAT, SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T MENTION WAS THE, UM, LLC IS ACTUALLY, UH, DEFUNCT AS WELL.
IT'S ACTUALLY WHAT, I'M SORRY.
THEY FORFEIT STATES THAT RECOGNIZED ANYMORE.
I MEAN, WELL THIS IS JUST AN, I MEAN THIS IS, THIS LOOKS, I MEAN, IT'S SUCH A SHAME 'CAUSE IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING, BUT THIS IS JUST, THIS IS BASICALLY AN ABANDONED PROPERTY.
AND SO I, I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE, TO THE DEMOLITION CONCERNS.
BUT ALSO, I MEAN, NORMALLY AFTER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS, DOESN'T THE TE THE CITY TAKE POSSESSION AND THEN SELL AT LIKE A TAX OX AUCTION? NO.
HOW, HOW WOULD THIS GO DOWN? DON'T DO THAT.
OR, OR IF THERE'S A MOR UM, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S NO MORTGAGE ON IT THEN.
BUT THE, BUT THE TAX LIENS WILL ACCRUE TO THE POINT WHERE THE COUNTY'S GONNA TAKE, COUNTY'S GONNA PULL THE TRIGGER EVENTUALLY.
SO THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO DON'T TEAR IT UP DOWN THE LITTLE HOUSE.
LEAVE SOMETHING FOR THE COUNTY TO TAKE OWNERSHIP.
[02:20:01]
TURN AROUND.DOES, DOES, DOES HAVE MEDIC DOES EVER COORDINATE WITH THE COUNTY ON, ON PROPERTIES LIKE THIS? IN TERMS OF, IN TERMS OF, UH, BACK TAXES? YES.
UH, SO THE, SO YES, THE, UH, THE COUNTY, UH, COUNTY ATTORNEY, I GUESS IS THE INITIATOR OF THE LAWSUIT.
AND ALL THE TAXING ENTITIES ARE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF REPRESENTED BY THE COUNTY.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY WORK WITH THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY LET US KNOW WHEN, WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY'RE GONNA DO THAT, WHEN THEY FILE, WHEN THEY FILE A SUIT.
AND I SUPPOSE WE, I'M NOT SURE IF WE ACTUALLY EVEN ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE.
WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE HAVE BEEN OCCASIONS WHERE THE CITY HAS AT LEAST NOTIFIED THE COUNTY THAT THERE MAY BE A PROPERTY THAT IS DEFICIENT IN ITS TAXES.
UM, THE COUNTY AT THAT POINT WILL THEN NOTIFY THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THEN IT BECOMES A MATTER FOR THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT.
UM, NOW THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT WILL NOT SHARE ANY INFORMATION UNLESS IT'S WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OR, OR THE PERSON WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE TAXES.
UM, BUT THEY DO, THEY WILL INVESTIGATE IF IT IS RAISED OR BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION.
I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A, THAT'S A BETTER SOLUTION THAN CONTINUING TO INSPECT IT AND BRING IT HERE AND FINDS ACCUMULATE IF NOTHING'S HAPPENED TO COORDINATE WITH THE COUNTY AND LET THEM DO WHAT THEY DO.
WELL THE PHONES, WELL WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK TO DEMO THE STUFF IN THE BACK THAT'S REALLY IN BAD SHAPE.
AND THE FINES ARE CAPPED OUT IF WE JUST STOP BREWING.
IF WE PASS THIS, WHAT STAFFS RECOMMEND.
SO IN, IN THEORY, KIND OF FAST FORWARD THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THE COUNTY'S GOING TO EVENTUALLY FORECLOSE AND TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND WHATEVER THEY GET OUT OF A SALE, THEY'LL PAY THEMSELVES FIRST PROBABLY.
AND THEN THE NEXT LIEN WILL BE OURS AGAINST THE PROPERTY.
SO MAYBE WE'LL GET A PIECE OF IT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE THING SELLS FOR.
ANY IDEA WHAT THIS PROPERTY FOR? MAYBE BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY A LIEN, YOU KNOW, SO THEY MIGHT NOT, WE MIGHT NOT SEE ANYTHING IT, NOR DON'T WE HAVE A LIEN AS A PART OF THIS.
WELL, NO, WE, UM, WELL, CAN WE TURN IT INTO A LIEN? YEAH.
MR. SOAD, I THINK YOU WANNA WEIGH IN TIM.
I WAS JUST GONNA JUMP IN AND ANSWER THAT.
I THINK, I THINK THE LIEN WOULD, THE LIEN IS PLACED AT, IF IN THE EVENT THAT, THAT WE DEMOLISH AND INCUR EXPENSES, THEN, THEN A LIEN CAN BE PLACED.
IS THAT RIGHT? BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO GET OUT AHEAD OF STAFF.
I I WAS JUST SORT OF SO CHANCES THAT MY UNDERSTANDING MAY ABLE GET A NICKEL OF THIS.
I MEAN IT'S, IT COULD BE, YEAH.
PRAISED AT SIX 30 AS A MATTER OF FACT.
UM, SO AGAIN, I DEFER TO OUR COUNSEL, BUT I BELIEVE THAT OUR ORDERS GET EXTINGUISHED BY, UH, A TAX SALE.
IF THEY GOT, IF THE PROPERTY'S WORTH 600,000, IS A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS WORTH OF, OF TAXES DUE, WELL THEY, THEY'RE STILL HALF MILLION DOLLARS THERE.
WHY WOULD WE NOT BE IN LINE TO, IF THEY SELL THAT PRICE? PARDON ME? IF THEY SELL IT FOR THAT MUCH.
THEY SAY THEY SELL IT FOR SOMETHING LESS.
I THERE'S THERE'S GOTTA BE SOMETHING THERE.
WE ARE CHASING OTHER FOR STAFF THAT, THAT THIS TAX.
SO, SO LEGALLY ELIMINATES IF WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS A TAX LIEN IS SUPERIOR OR WOULD BE SUPERIOR MM-HMM
RIGHT NOW, IT REALLY ISN'T DEPENDENT ON ARE THERE WHAT WE CALL EXCESS PROCEEDS.
SO IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT FROM A SALE? RIGHT.
IF SO, THEN WE COULD HYPOTHETICALLY MAKE A CLAIM FOR THAT.
BUT IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD AND NOTHING REMAINS BECAUSE SURE EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PAID TO COVER THE TAXES, THEN WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE, UM, A SEPARATE CLAIM.
SO WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FILE SUIT AT A LATER TIME TO TRY TO COLLECT.
SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT'S, WHAT'S STILL AVAILABLE AFTER THE FACT.
WELL YOU GUYS WILL DO THE RIGHT THING, I'M SURE FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
TIM, HE, HE WAS TRYING TO MOVE.
COMMISSIONER SOAD SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SOAD.
[02:25:01]
IS THERE A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THIS MATTER? I'M GONNA TRY IT OUT TODAY.COMMISSIONER GARZA
SECOND MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER GARZA, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE.
COMMISS, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING COMMISSION 2026 RETREAT.
SO I'D LIKE TO TURN THE MICROPHONE OVER TO, UH, MELANIE, ALLIE, AND SHE'S GOING TO TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT RETREAT DATES.
[9. Discussion and possible action regarding a 2026 Commission retreat. ]
THE AGENDA IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT A COMMISSION RETREAT, POSSIBLY HOLDING A COMMISSION RETREAT IN 2026.AND, UM, WE LOOKED AT SOME DATES AND SOMETIMES, AND I WANTED TO DISCUSS THOSE WITH YOU.
SO WE LOOKED, WE LOOKED AT WHAT WORKED BEST FOR OUR SCHEDULES.
AND SO I HAVE SOME DATES IN EARLY MAY, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE THE BEST TIME WORKING INTO OUR SCHEDULE, BUT IT, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ALL GONNA WORK FOR YOU.
SO I LOOKED AT THESE DATES, UH, THE FOURTH THROUGH THE 7TH OF MAY.
UM, MS. HERRERA WILL BE OUT OF THE OFFICE, SO IF WE COULD DO IT THE FOURTH THROUGH THE SEVENTH WOULD BE OUR PERFECT DATES.
UM, OR WE COULD DO THE FIRST WEEK IN JUNE, WHICH WOULD BE, THOSE ARE THE OTHER DATES WE WERE PROPOSING.
IF Y'ALL WANT SOMETHING ELSE, LET US KNOW.
BUT THOSE ARE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING RIGHT NOW IS THE FOURTH, UH, ONE OF THESE DATES, THE FOURTH THROUGH THE 7TH OF MAY, OR FIRST THROUGH THE 5TH OF JUNE.
AND I THINK I'VE PUT, SO IT'S UP ON THE SCREEN AND THEN I ALSO PUT THIS IN YOUR READER SO YOU COULD SEE THE CALENDAR PAGES.
I CAN DO THE JUNE 1ST THROUGH THE FIFTH THAT WEEK'S OPEN IF THAT.
AND WE LOOKED AT TWO DIFFERENT ROOMS IN THIS BUILDING AND BOTH ARE AVAILABLE.
ONE IS UP ON THE FOURTH FLOOR, WHICH IS REALLY NICE ROOM 'CAUSE IT HAS, UH, A LITTLE PATIO AREA AND A CITY, YOU KNOW, LOBBY AREA NEXT TO IT.
THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE THE ROOMS ACROSS THE HALL, WHICH ARE DOWN IN THIS AREA.
UM, SOME TRAINING ROOMS. AND I THINK WE'VE BEEN IN THOSE ROOMS BEFORE FOR RETREAT SCHULTZ'S.
IS THAT PARDON? S SCHULTZ IS NOT ON THE
GUYS ARE TOUGH, HAVE TO BE RECORDED AND TOUGH.
WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM ON WEBEX.
SO
IT'S, YEAH, WE USUALLY, WE CALL IT A RETREAT, BUT IT'S USUALLY TO DISCUSS, UM, DO A LITTLE TRAINING, UH, INTRODUCE YOU TO SOME PARTS OF THE CODE DEPARTMENT.
UM, AND PEOPLE IN THE CITY THAT ACTUALLY WORK WITH US TO, UH, DO OUR JOBS.
AND THEN ALSO TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS THAT YOU HAVE AND THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO HEAR ABOUT.
UM, SO WE PUT TOGETHER AN AGENDA THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH AND YEAH, AND FOOD.
IT USUALLY WE START, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THE LAST ONE WAS FROM 11 TO TWO.
I GUESS IT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW LONG THE AGENDA IS, BUT IT COULD GO FROM NINE TO THREE, 11 TO TWO, WHATEVER Y'ALL DECIDE.
10 TO, IT'S USUALLY JUST PART, YOU KNOW, FOUR TO SIX HOURS.
SO JUST THAT FIRST WEEK OF MAY, THAT'S ALL YOU'VE GOT.
AND THEN THE FIRST WEEK OF JUNE WE CAN IF THROW SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE.
IF WE'RE TOGETHER, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK IT IN, YOU KNOW, PUT TOGETHER.
HE'S OUT THE FIRST WEEK OF MAY.
I'M OUT THE FIRST WEEK OF JUNE.
OH, I WAS JUST ABOUT TO EXPRESS MY PREFERENCE FOR JUNE.
JUST 'CAUSE UH, I'VE GOT MY, MY LAST FINAL EXAMS STARTING AROUND THAT TIME IN MAY.
SO, SO IT LOOKS LIKE MAY'S OUT MAY THE FIRST WEEK IN MAY.
I COULD, I COULD STILL DO MAY, BUT YOU MIGHT CATCH ME A LITTLE STRESSED
THAT'S, THREE OF YOU ALREADY SAID THAT'S NOT GONNA WORK.
OTHER DATE WE'RE LOOKING AT IT WAS THE FIRST WEEK IN JUNE, WOULD YOU? WELL, THE OTHER, THE SECOND WEEK IS FINE.
UM, THIRD WEEK IS FINE IN MAY.
[02:30:01]
BE GREAT.AND JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I THINK WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LIKE A DURING THE DAY, RIGHT? SURE.
CAN YOU JUST, CAN YOU MOVE TO THE NEXT PAGE ON THE, THERE'S TWO PAGES OF, YOU DIDN'T MEAN 11:00 PM TO 2:00 AM
THERE SHOULD BE A SECOND PAGE ON THERE.
I THOUGHT, DID I HEAR THAT RIGHT? YEAH, I, I WAS LIKE, IT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE PRONOUNCED THAT WAY.
HERE ARE THE DATES IN JUNE ON THE SCREEN.
I DUNNO IF YOU SPEND ENOUGH TIME, SPEND ENOUGH TIME LOOKING UP IN INCORPORATED BUSINESSES.
THERE'S ALL SORTS OF WEIRD NAMES OUT THERE.
I THINK THAT WAS ALMOST CERTAINLY EXACTLY THE PUN THAT IT WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING FOR JUNE.
ANYTHING THAT WEEK? JUNE 10TH? DOES THAT WEEK WORK? OR I CAN, YEAH, THAT WEEK WORKS.
OH, THE NO HS ARE ON THE WRONG DATE.
HOW ABOUT, UH, THE 10TH NAME? SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOME OTHER DATES? THE 10TH.
YEAH, THAT'S THE DAY WE SEND OUT NOTICES.
WE COULD SEND THEM OUT A DIFFERENT DAY.
I'M GONNA HAVE TO LOOK AT ROOM AVAILABILITY FOR THOSE DATES.
I'M SEEING HEADS NOD FOR 9, 10, 11.
SO THAT YOU WANNA LOOK AT THOSE THREE DAYS AND LET US KNOW.
THAT ANY OF THESE DAYS WORK FOR ME, SO.
YOU'D PREFER THE ROOM UPSTAIRS AND THEN SCHULTZ.
HELL AT LEAST IT'S NOT AUGUST.
CAN I LET YOU KNOW NEXT MONTH? WHAT DAY? OR DO Y'ALL WANNA PICK A FIRST, SECOND, THIRD CHOICE AS FAR AS DATES? DOESN'T MATTER.
ALL ARE GOOD WITH ANY OF THOSE DAYS? YEAH.
I'M AFRAID IF WE GO TOO LONG THERE'LL BE VACANCIES AND
IF WE'VE GOT TWO, WE'RE JUST MISSING.
GOTTA HANG AROUND FOR A WHILE.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ANY OTHER BUSINESS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS?
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
DID WE HAVE, UM, WHEN I LISTENED TO THE MINUTES TO THE MEETING LAST WEEK, WASN'T THERE SOME PRESENT LAST MONTH A PRESENTATION THAT SOMETHING WAS GONNA FOLLOW UP AT THIS MEETING? I JUST CAUGHT THE TAIL END OF THAT.THAT WAS AFTER WE TALKED ABOUT THE MONTH PLAN, WHICH YEAH.
WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE CLEAR THERE.
UM, IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? NO, I'M SORRY.
WE, WE HAVE TO COVER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ANYTHING ELSE? WE, UM, SO I, I'M, I'M SORRY.
I GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE MADE IT A LITTLE MORE CLEAR, BUT DO YOU WANT TO BRING BACK PARKVIEW IN MARCH? OH YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.
WE ONLY GAVE HER 30 DAYS, SO YEAH.
WE LIVE WITH THE 10 YEAR CASE.
WE NORMALLY, WE NORMALLY TRY TO GET YOU TO LIKE SAY LIKE, WE WANT TO HEAR IT AT THE NEXT, AT THIS MEETING ON THIS DATE? YES.
WE WANT TO HEAR THAT FIRST CASE.
THE 30, UM, IS IT 30 DAYS? CONTINUANCE ABOUT 30 DAYS.
SHE DIDN'T LIKE IT, BUT WELL, AT THE NEXT MEETING, 30 DAYS, 76.
NO, 'CAUSE THERE'S, RIGHT, BUT TODAY'S THE 23RD, RIGHT? AND THERE'S UH, TODAY'S THE 25TH.
AND THERE'S ONLY 28 DAYS IN FEBRUARY.
THAT NEXT MEETING IS MARCH 25TH, 28TH.
'CAUSE WE TECHNICALITY, BUT SHOULD WE, SHOULD WE PUT THAT OFF UNTIL APRIL? IT SOUND LIKE SINCE IT WON'T BE 30 DAYS.
YEAH, SHE'LL BE HAPPY SHE GOT AWAY WITH IT.
SHE'S JUST GOT A LITTLE MORE TIME.
YEAH, WE'LL GET HER 20 YEARS, WE'LL GET, WE'LL GET IT PROCESSED.
UH, IS IT POSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE TO HER TO LET HER KNOW, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE'LL ALL BE HERE OH, WE'LL BE IN TOUCH.
SHE'LL BE CALLING JAMES, DON'T WORRY.
WE, UM, WELL, AND ALSO IS THAT IT? OH, I'M SORRY.
[02:35:01]
UM, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK THE FUTURE, THE EMAIL, UM, WE MAY HAVE A PENALTY RELIEF HEARING, BUT WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THAT.WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S FOR THE, THE, YES.
UM, WE'LL, WE'LL, AGAIN, I'VE GOTTA GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT FIRST.
AND THEN I'LL COORDINATE WITH, WITH MELANIE AND STAFF.
SO THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA.
WOULDN'T THERE THREE? MELANIE, DIDN'T YOU GET THREE RESPONSES? PARDON? THERE WERE THREE RESPONSES TO POST, WASN'T THERE? YES, WE GOT THREE RESPONSES, BUT IT, IT'S A, IT'S TECHNICALLY A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, SO WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE WHETHER IT SHOULD BE HEARD BEFORE THE COMMISSION OR IF IT, WE NEED TO DO A PENALTY OFFSET.
WE'RE GONNA DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON THAT.