* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:02]
           EVERYBODY, 
          [CALL TO ORDER  ]
I CALL THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER FOR MARCH 25TH, 2026. 
          LET THE RECORD REFLECT THE TIME IS SIX 30. 
          MY NAME IS JEFF MUSGROVE. 
          I'M A COMMISSIONER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. 
          I'LL BE PRESIDING OVER THE MEETING IN PLACE OF THE VICE CHAIR WHO COULD NOT ATTEND TONIGHT. 
          AT THIS TIME, I'LL CALL THE ROLE AND ASK FOR THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT TONIGHT TO PLEASE SIGNIFY YOU'RE HERE. 
          A QUICK REMINDER TO ANY COMMISSIONERS REMOTING IN, PLEASE TURN ON YOUR CAMERA AND KEEP IT ON SO AS TO MAINTAIN QUORUM. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWN HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER GARZA. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER GILKER. 
          HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER RIVERA HERE. 
          AND I'M COMMISSIONER MUSGROVE AND I'M HERE BEFORE THE CASES ARE CALLED, 
          [PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL  ]
THE COMMISSION WILL ENTERTAIN PUBLIC COMMUNICATION ON ITEMS NOT ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. 
          EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOTTED THREE MINUTES OR SIX MINUTES FOR ANYONE REQUIRING INTERPRETATION OF SERVICES. 
          TONIGHT THE COMMISSIONER WILL CONDUCT A HEARING FOR FOUR ITEMS ON, ON THE POSTED AGENDA. 
          THE COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER FOUR CASES FROM FOUR PROPERTIES. 
          THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ORDER IN WHICH THEY APPEAR ON THE AGENDA. 
          HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE A CASE OUT OF ORDER IF IT'S APPROPRIATE. 
          ALL ATTENDEES AT THIS HEARING ARE REQUIRED TO OBSERVE APPROPRIATE DECORUM AND CIVILITY SO AS NOT TO IMPAIR THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS CODE REVIEW. 
          ANALYST JAMES EVERWINE WILL CALL EACH CASE ON THE AGENDA FOLLOWED BY TESTIMONY. 
          AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF WILL ALSO BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED. 
          THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY MUST COME BE FORWARD AND TAKE A SEAT NEAR THE PODIUM, OR IF YOU ARE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, UNMUTE YOUR PHONE. 
          THE CITY WILL PRESENT ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES FIRST AND WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO DO SO. 
          THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE ALLOTTED FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE CITY'S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR TESTIMONY. 
          AFTER THE CITY HAS PRESENTED ITS EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME TO PRESENT THEIR OWN WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE. 
          THE CITY WILL BE, WILL BE ALLOWED IN FIVE MINUTES TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVES. 
          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 HIMSELF. 
          JAMES GONZALEZ FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND I'LL BE YOUR TIMEKEEPER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AFTER THE OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CITY OF PRESENT EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES, THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF EITHER SIDE. 
          AFTER THE COMMISSION MEMBERS ASK QUESTIONS, I WILL ALLOW OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES WHO ARE PRESENT TO OFFER RELEVANT TESTIMONY ABOUT THE CASE. 
          BOTH SIDES AND THE COMMISSION MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF ANY ADDITIONAL WITNESSES. 
          I WILL GIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER, REPRESENTATIVE, OR APPELLANT THREE MINUTES. 
          TO SUMMARIZE AT MY DISCRETION, THE CITY MAY BE PERMITTED TO PRESENT REBUTTAL AFTER THE SUMMATION. 
          AFTER ALL THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IS CONCLUDED, THE COMMISSION WILL DISCUSS THE CASE AND VOTE ON A DECISION. 
          THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WILL BE ANNOUNCED TONIGHT AND A COPY OF THE DECISION WILL BE MAILED TO YOU. 
          UH, DECISION OF THE COMMISSION IS FINAL AND BINDING UNLESS APPEALED TO DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS AS PROVIDED IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. 
          IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PROCEDURE, PLEASE ASK YOUR QUESTIONS WHEN YOUR CASE IS CALLED WITNESSES TESTIFY UNDER OATH. 
          ANY PERSON THAT WANTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COMMISSION, IN ANY CASE, INCLUDING THOSE REMOTING IN, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          SO YOU MAY BE SWORN IN. 
          DO EACH OF YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO. 
          I DO. 
          IF THERE'S NOTHING FURTHER, WE'LL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING. 
          UM, DO WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE FOR EACH OF THE OTHER CASES OR JUST ONE? JUST ONE IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS AGREE? YES, MA'AM. 
          MY APOLOGIES. 
          UH, CHAIR, IF YOU COULD JUST VERIFY WITH STAFF THAT THERE ARE NO, THAT THERE'S NO ONE HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS. 
          AH, VERY GOOD. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK, AND 
          [APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
ACTUALLY, OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING. 
          [00:05:04]
I NEED A MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING. 
          SECOND MOVED AND SECONDED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING. 
          I'M GONNA DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWN. 
          APPROVE. 
          COMMISSIONER GARZA. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GILKER. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER AVARA AYE. 
          AND CHAIR VOTES AYE. 
          SO IT'S APPROVED. 
          UM, 
          [2. Case Number: CL 2026-013540 ]
NOW WE'LL TAKE A CASES, CALL THE CASE NUMBER CL TWO ZERO TWO SIX ONE THREE FIVE FOUR ZERO. 
          IF THE PROPERTY IS REPRESENTED, WILL THE REPRESENTATIVES PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE? WE HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN NOW FOR THESE CASES. 
          IS THIS FOR WESTOVER? YES, WE, UH, YES, WE HAVE, UH, REPRESENTATIVES FOR, UH, ITEM NUMBER TWO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          PLEASE RECITE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          WEST WESTOVER ROAD. 
          THIS IS NOT OUR ITEM. 
          THIS IS FOR, UH, WESTOVER OR I, UH, I THIS IS, YES, SIR. 
          SOUTH FIRST. 
          OKAY. 
          DO, DO YOU WANT TO DO, UM, SOUTH FIRST OR DO YOU WANNA STICK WITH WESTOVER RIGHT NOW? IS THERE ANYBODY HERE FOR THE WESTOVER PROPERTY? IS, IS THERE ANYONE? OH, OKAY. 
          THERE IS, YES. 
          OKAY, WE'LL NEED TO DO THAT ONE FIRST. 
          SURE. 
          AND THEY HAVE, OKAY, I CAN START, I CAN READ THE SCRIPT NOW. 
          YEAH. 
          PROPERTY. 
          I, ITEM NUMBER TWO ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 2 2 6 0 1 3 5 4 AND IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1704 WESTOVER ROAD. 
          THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GREEN BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. 
          HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE CASES REGARDING AN UNOCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT IS HOMESTEADED. 
          THE CASE WAS OPENED IN FEBRUARY OF 2022 AS THE RESULT OF A COMPLAINT. 
          THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE REPAIR. 
          IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY. 
          A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS. 
          AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO N. 
          AND THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE SUPERVISOR ERICA THOMPSON, IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED. 
          SUPERVISOR THOMPSON, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. 
          GOOD EVENING. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS ERICA TOM THOMPSON AND I'M A SUPERVISOR FOR THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CODE DEPARTMENT. 
          THE PROPERTY BEING PRESENTED AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 1704 WESTOVER ROAD IN FEBRUARY OF 2022. 
          A COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED VIA AUSTIN 3 1 1 FOR A DETERIORATED VACANT PROPERTY. 
          AN INITIAL INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED, A NOTICE OF VIOLATION SENT FOR DAMAGED FENCE CRACKING AND PEELING PAINT ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE. 
          DAMAGED ROOF, FASCIA BOARDS AND EXTERIOR WINDOW TRIMS BROUGHT IN AWAY. 
          A NOTICE OF VIOLATION WAS SENT TO THE OWNER BETWEEN FEBRUARY AND DECEMBER OF 2022. 
          MANY FOLLOW UP INSPECTIONS WERE PERFORMED AND TWO ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS ISSUED. 
          THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PROPERTY AT EITHER HEARING. 
          IN APRIL OF 23, THE OWNER REACHED OUT TO THE THEN ASSIGNED CODE INSPECTOR FOR THE CASE. 
          THE OWNER REQUESTED THAT HE SEND HER PHOTOS OF THE VIOLATIONS AND EXPLAINED WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MAKE REPAIRS. 
          HE FOLLOWED THROUGH ON THAT REQUEST, PROVIDING HER THE INFORMATION SHE REQUESTED. 
          BETWEEN MAY OF 2023 AND SEPTEMBER OF 2023, THE CODE INSPECTOR TRIED TO CONTACT THE OWNER WITH NO CONNECTION, UM, ACHIEVED. 
          THE OWNER REACHED OUT TO THE INSPECTOR AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 AND ASKED HIM IF HE'D BE WILLING TO MEET A CONTRACTOR AT THE PROPERTY TO SHOW HIM WHAT REPAIRS NEEDED TO BE MADE. 
          AND THE INSPECTOR AGREED ONCE AGAIN. 
          AFTER THAT CONTACT EVENT, THE OWNER STOPPED REACHING OUT AND DIDN'T ANSWER THE INSPECTOR'S PHONE CALLS AND NO MEETINGS WERE EVER CONDUCTED IN DECEMBER, 2023 AND AGAIN IN FEBRUARY, 2024, TWO MORE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITATIONS WERE ISSUED. 
          AND AGAIN, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER AT THE HEARINGS IN AUGUST OF 2024, THIS CASE WAS SUBMITTED TO MUNICIPAL COURT AND 
          [00:10:01]
THE OWNER DID NOT ATTEND, RESULTING IN A WARRANT FOR ARREST BEING ISSUED. 
          MANY FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS AND CON CONTACT ATTEMPTS WERE CONDUCTED, UM, THROUGH OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, 2025, UM, WHICH IS WHEN I OBTAINED A SEARCH WARRANT TO ACCESS THE EX, TO ACCESS THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY TO INVESTIGATE FOR UNSANITARY CONDITIONS AND STRUCTURAL VIOLATIONS. 
          WHILE ATTEMPTING TO POST THE WARRANT ON THE FRONT DOOR DUE TO A BROKEN DOOR JAM, THE DOOR PUSHED OPEN, EXPOSING THE CONTENTS OF THE HOUSE. 
          I THEN OBSERVED MOUNTED, UH, DEBRIS, TRASH FURNITURE AND BOXES IN THE HOUSE THAT WERE PILED APPROXIMATELY FOUR TO FIVE FEET HIGH, COMPLETELY COVERING THE ENTIRE FLOOR AREA. 
          I HAD THE FRONT DOOR BOARDED AND SECURED AT THAT TIME BY THE CITY CONTRACTOR. 
          I THEN REACHED OUT TO THE OWNER VIA PHONE CALL AND SHE ANSWERED, I EXPLAINED THE SITUATION AND CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE OWNER STATED SHE'S ELDERLY AND DISABLED AND HAS NO WAY OF RETURNING TO THE PROPERTY TO CARE FOR IT. 
          SHE STATED SHE DID NOT WANT TO SELL THE PROPERTY DUE TO SENTIMENTAL VALUE AND DOESN'T HAVE THE MEANS TO CLEAN OR REPAIR THE PROPERTY. 
          I ASKED HER IF THERE WERE VOLUNTEERS OR ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD HELP HER IF SHE'D BE WILLING TO ACCEPT HELP. 
          AND SHE EXPLAINED AGAIN THAT SHE HAS NO WAY OF COMING TO THE HOUSE. 
          SHE LIVES ABOUT SIX HOURS AWAY. 
          I EXPLAINED THAT IF SHE COULDN'T, THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO ABATE THE PROPERTY DUE TO THE UNSANITARY CONDITIONS INSIDE THE HOUSE. 
          SHE EXPRESSED THAT SHE DIDN'T KNOW THE PROPERTY WAS THAT BAD AND THAT SHE WOULD, SHE PAYS SOMEONE MONTHLY TO MOW THE GRASS AND PAYS FOR AN EXTERMINATOR TO REBATE RODENT TRAPS THAT ARE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE. 
          SHE THOUGHT THE HOUSE WAS BEING MAINTAINED. 
          I SENT HER PHOTOS AND THE CURRENT NOTICE OF VIOLATION SHOWING HER THAT ALL THE, UM, VIOLATIONS, SHE STOPPED COMMUNICATING WITH ME AND HAS NOT RESPONDED TO CODE COMPLIANCE'S SOCIAL WORKER WHO HAS ALSO LEFT HER VOICEMAILS. 
          IN JANUARY OF 2026, I OBTAINED A WARRANT AND HAD THE PROPERTY ABATED ON THE INTERIOR AND THE EXTERIOR BY THE CITY CONTRACTOR. 
          I'LL NOW TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PHOTOS OF THE VIOLATIONS. 
          PHOTO TWO A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE HOUSE AS SEEN FROM THE PUBLIC STREET. 
          NEXT PHOTO TWO B IS A PHOTO OF THE FRONT DOOR THAT WAS BOARDED UP, AS I STATED, UM, UNABLE TO BE SECURED DUE TO THE BROKEN DOOR JAMB. 
          AND ON THERE YOU'LL SEE THE NOTICES AND THOSE NOTICES GO BACK AS FAR AS 2022. 
          UM, WHEN WE FIRST STARTED POSTING THE PROPERTY TO CURRENT NEXT PHOTO, THIS IS A PHOTO SHOWING YOU THE DAMAGED FASCIA BOARD ON THE ROOF WITH THAT HOLE THERE. 
          PHOTO 2D IS A PHOTO SHOWING YOU SOME OF THE SIDING COMING AWAY FROM THE HOUSE AND THE UNDERPINNING OF THE HOUSE ALSO COMING AWAY FROM THE HOUSE. 
          PHOTO TWO E IS A PICTURE OF THE SIDING, A HOLE IN THE SIDING ABOVE ONE OF THE WINDOWS. 
          PICTURE TWO F IS SHOWING YOU, UM, THERE IS NO METER IN THE ELECTRICAL METER BOX AND DAMAGED ELECTRICAL WIRES. 
          PHOTO TWO G IS SHOWING YOU A PHOTO OF THE HOUSE FROM THE BACKYARD VIEW, SHOWING YOU TWO OF THE DOORS THAT WERE BOARDED UP, UM, AFTER ABATEMENT AND OH, SORRY. 
          AND THEN ON TOP OF THE ROOF THERE'S A HOLE. 
          UH, NEXT PHOTO, TWO H IS THE DOOR THAT WAS BOARDED UP AFTER THE ABATEMENT. 
          NEXT TWO I IS A ZOOMED IN PHOTO OF THE HOLE. 
          UM, IT'S JUST BEYOND THOSE TREE LIMBS. 
          THERE'S A HOLE WHERE THERE USED TO BE A STACK VENT COMING OUTTA THE ROOF. 
          UM, IS NO LONGER THERE. 
          THIS IS A PHOTO OF ONE SECTION OF THE FENCE THAT'S IN DISREPAIR. 
          PHOTO 2K IS A PHOTO STANDING OUTSIDE THE FRONT WINDOW TAKING A PHOTO OF THE INTERIOR OF THE LIVING ROOM. 
          NEXT PHOTO. 
          THIS IS A PHOTO ALSO FROM A SIDE WINDOW OF THE INTERIOR OF THE LIVING ROOM. 
          TWO M IS A SAME VANTAGE POINT FROM THE OUTSIDE. 
          UM, JUST STANDING, LOOKING STRAIGHT IN INTO THE WINDOW. 
          TWO N IS A WINDOW THAT GOES INTO THE KITCHEN. 
          UM, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE. 
          BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. 
          STAFF 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. 
          N. 
          STAFF ALSO REQUESTED THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER THE OWNER 
          [00:15:01]
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING, ONE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. 
          B, CORRECT, ALL CITED, UH, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH ONE A AND ONE B AND TWO ON THE 46TH DAY OF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED. 
          AS SAYS, A CIVIL PENALTY OF $250 PER WEEK THAT WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE CODE OFFICIAL DETERMINES THAT THE REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL. 
          NOW WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION, I'LL ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO NI UNDERSTAND WE DO NOT HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER HERE, BUT THERE ARE, IS IT A SEPARATE INTERESTED PARTY? TAMMY? TAMMY PLEMONS, IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE BECAUSE YOU MISSED THE SWEARING IN. 
          I'LL NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN. 
          GO AHEAD AND COME ON UP. 
          DO YOU SWEAR OR, OR AFFIRM OF THE TESTIMONY YOU'LL PROVIDE THIS EVENING IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? IF, IF SO, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING I DO. 
          I DO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          PLEASE HAVE A SEAT. 
          OKAY. 
          HELLO, GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS TAMMY PLEMONS AND I LIVE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO 1704 WESTOVER ROAD. 
          AND I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THIS STREET FOR OVER 15 YEARS. 
          AND I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK FOR THE NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE LIVED ALONGSIDE THIS PROPERTY FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES. 
          FOR OVER 20 YEARS. 
          THIS HOME HAS ENTIRELY BEEN UNOCCUPIED. 
          WE HAVE TRIED TO BE PATIENT, BUT THIS PROPERTY HAS MOVED PAST BEING VACANT. 
          IT'S NOW A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY. 
          THERE'S DOCUMENTED NEGLECT AND FINANCIAL LIABILITY. 
          THE OWNER'S HISTORY SHOWS A CONSISTENT PATTERN OF NON-COMPLIANCE. 
          FIRST SEVERE TAX DELINQUENCY. 
          PUBLIC RECORDS SHOWS OVER $274,000 OWED TO THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. 
          THIS PROPERTY IS A MASSIVE FINANCIAL BURDEN TO OUR COMMUNITY. 
          SECOND, LEGAL DEFIANCE. 
          THE OWNER HAS FAILED TO APPEAR TO COURT SUMMONS SO MANY TIMES THAT THERE IS AN ACTIVE WARRANT. 
          THIRD, UNRESOLVED VIOLATIONS, MULTIPLE CODE VIOLATIONS HAVE SAT UNTOUCHED FOR YEARS. 
          THIS ISN'T A LACK OF MAINTENANCE, IT'S A DELIBERATE ABANDONMENT. 
          AND THERE HAS, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE, BEEN COMPLIANCE OR, UM, COMPLAINTS VIA 3 1 1 SINCE I MOVED IN IN 2015. 
          SECOND, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SAFETY HAZARDS, THE PROPERTY HAS BECOME A SOURCE OF ACTIVE DANGER FOR OUR BLOCK. 
          THE ACCUMULATION OF DEAD WOOD AND DEBRIS IS A MAJOR FIRE HAZARD INSIDE THE ROT AND MOISTURE HAVE CREATED MOLD AND AN AIR QUALITY ISSUE FOR THOSE OF US LIVING NEXT DOOR. 
          THAT'S A FIRE AND HEALTH RISK. 
          THERE'S A PEST INFESTATION. 
          IT HAS BECOME A HARBOR FOR A RAT, SEVERE RAT INFESTATION AND NOW SPREAD TO OUR NEIGHBORING HOMES. 
          AND THERE CURRENTLY IS AN ACTIVE FOX LIVING AT THE PROPERTY. 
          STRUCTURAL FAILURES. 
          THE FENCE HAS COLLAPSED. 
          THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS FAILING, AND DEAD TREES FROM THE PROPERTY HAVE ALREADY FALLEN ONTO MY HOME, CAUSING DAMAGE. 
          THE CRITICAL SAFETY IRONY, MOST CONCERNING, WE HAVE HAD DOCUMENTED ISSUES WITH PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, LIVING INSIDE THE ABANDONED STRUCTURE STRUCTURE. 
          IN FACT, CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS INFORMED US THAT THEY WON'T ENTER THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A FELLOW CODE OFFICER, BACK UP, CODE OFFICER, OR A POLICE DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS REGARDING THE OCCUPANTS. 
          IT IS A STARTLING CONTRADICTION. 
          IF THE CITY CONSIDERS A PROPERTY TOO DANGEROUS FOR THEIR OWN OFFICERS TO ENTER ALONE, IT IS CERTAINLY TOO DANGEROUS FOR US TO LIVE DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO IT EVERY SINGLE DAY. 
          OUR RECOMMENDATION, WE HAVE REACHED A POINT WHERE THE NEIGHBORS ARE ESSENTIALLY ACTING AS INVOLUNTARY PROPERTY MANAGERS FOR A SITE. 
          ITS OWNER HAS FORSAKEN BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF DECAY, THE EXTREME FINANCIAL DELINQUENCY, AND THE RECURRING SAFETY RISK. 
          WE BELIEVE DEMOLITION IS THE ONLY VIABLE PATH FORWARD. 
          WE RESPECTFULLY URGE THIS COMMITTEE TO PRIORITIZE THE SAFETY AND HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY AND ISSUE A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION FOR DEMOLITION. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR WORK ON BEHALF OF THE AUSTIN RESIDENTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND I HAVE, UM, SOME TALKING POINTS THAT I HAVE. 
          COULD I PASS THESE OUT? OKAY. 
          [00:20:01]
BROUGHT SIX. 
          I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY. 
          DO WE HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER FROM STAFF? NO, NO SIR. 
          WE'RE GOING TO SCAN THAT DOCUMENT, UH, FOR COMMISSIONER GILKER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          WHILE WE WAIT, CAN I HAVE QUESTIONS? SURE. 
          LET'S CLICK GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST, I THINK WE DO QUESTIONS AND THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          YES. 
          IF YOU ALL HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU GET INTO THE DISCUSSION PORTION, THIS WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          IT'S JUST WE WANT TO AVOID TOO MUCH DISCUSSION UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          WE HAVE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS. 
          YEAH, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. 
          UM, FOR THE CITY STAFF, UM, FIRST I THINK MY BIG QUESTION IS WHY WE ARE RECOMMENDING A REPAIR VERSUS DEMOLITION. 
          UM, I WAS RECOMMENDING REPAIR BECAUSE DURING THE ABATEMENT PROCESS AND INSIDE THE HOUSE, OF COURSE, ASIDE FROM ALL THE TRASH AND DEBRIS THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE HOUSE, THERE WASN'T ANY MAJOR, UM, STRUCTURAL COMPONENT DAMAGE. 
          UM, MEANING, UM, THE SECOND FLOOR WAS STABLE THERE. 
          YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO, UM, ALL THE FLOORING WAS STABLE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR, THE STAIRS GOING UP TO THE SECOND FLOOR. 
          UM, THERE WERE SOME HOLES IN SOME INTERIOR SURFACES AND WHATNOT, BUT NONE TOO BAD. 
          UM, AND TRULY THAT IN THE HOPES THAT IF WE SENT A REPAIR ORDER, THAT IT WOULD BASICALLY, UM, HELP THE OWNER MAKE A DETERMINATION REGARDING THIS PROPERTY ONCE AND FOR ALL. 
          UM, IS THE, IS THIS LISTED AS A HOMESTEAD PROPERTY? IT IS FASCINATING. 
          UM, AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION ON TWO LI JUST WANTED TO GET A BETTER SENSE FROM YOU OF WHAT YOU THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE. 
          IT DOES LOOK TO ME LIKE THERE'S A HOLE IN THE CEILING IN EXHIBIT TWO L. 
          I CAN SEE INSULATION COMING DOWN. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY. 
          MINE. 
          OH YES. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          LET'S TURN YOUR MIC ON. 
          ON YOUR HONOR. 
          HELLO. 
          I WAS JUST GONNA STATE THE CEILING. 
          UM, TILES ARE ALL COLLAPSING THE SECOND FLOOR. 
          I HAVEN'T BEEN IN THE BUILDING, BUT I'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE OWNER AND THAT'S BEEN AN ISSUE FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS. 
          IT'S COCA IN ON ITSELF. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, AND THOSE PHOTOS DO LOOK A LITTLE BIT BETTER 'CAUSE THE CITY DID COME OUT FINALLY IN A BAIT. 
          UM, I WISH THEY WOULD'VE TAKEN SOME PHOTOS BEFORE THE ABATEMENT SO YOU COULD GET A FULL VIEW OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN LIVING NEXT TO FOR 15 YEARS. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, SO THE CEILING THAT YOU SEE, THE, UM, CEILING TILES ARE IN FACT FALLING AND INSULATION FALLING, BUT THAT'S THE SUBSE. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, THERE'S OF COURSE THE TOP STORY FLOOR AND THEN THE CEILING, WHICH IS, IT LOOKS REALLY GOOD ACTUALLY BEYOND THOSE, UM, SUB BEYOND THE SUBSE, IT'S, UM, HARD SOLID WOOD. 
          AND AGAIN, WALKING UP THERE ON THAT FLOOR MM-HMM. 
          NO RISK OF, THERE WAS NO SOFT FLOOR OR ANYTHING. 
          MM-HMM. 
          UM, SO IT, IT DOES LOOK PRETTY BAD BECAUSE THAT INSULATION'S FALLING DOWN FROM THAT SUBSE. 
          MM-HMM. 
          BUT IT IS JUST THAT IT'S A SUBSE IT COULD BE TAKEN COMPLETELY DOWN. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND THEN, I GUESS THIS MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION, BUT JUST, IT, IT'S, WITH THIS HISTORY, DO WE FEEL LIKE, UM, A REPAIR ORDER AND FINES WILL ACTUALLY RESULT IN ACTION? UM, AND YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT, BUT THAT'S, UM, ESPECIALLY IF WE ARE LOOKING AT DELINQUENT, A LARGE DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAX BILL. 
          UH, DO WE HAVE VERIFICATION OF THAT? BUT, UM, AT ONE POINT WE LOOKED UP THE RECORD AND WE DID SEE THAT SHE WAS IN DEFAULT. 
          [00:25:01]
BUT OF COURSE, UM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN MUCH TO US. 
          WE WERE MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES IN THE HOUSE. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT, YOU SAID THERE WAS A WARRANT ISSUED. 
          I WASN'T AWARE THAT YOU COULD ISSUE WARRANTS FOR THIS. 
          SO, UM, ANY CASE THAT WE TAKE TO MUNICIPAL COURT, IT'S JUST, IT'S A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. 
          SO IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR, THEY CAN ISSUE A WARRANT FOR YOUR ARREST. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN HER CASE. 
          'CAUSE OF COURSE, SHE DIDN'T APPEAR AT THAT HEARING. 
          WHICH HEARING THE UNI WE FILED IN MUNICIPAL COURT ON HER A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR. 
          FOR WHAT? UH, WE WROTE A CITATION FOR ONE OF THESE STRUCTURAL VIOLATIONS. 
          UM, AND THEN SHE DIDN'T APPEAR FOR THE COURT CASE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND SO THEY ISSUED A WARRANT FOR HER ARREST. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, LIKE YOU SAID, SHE'S ELDERLY, UM, AND SHE PROBABLY CAN'T, LIKE SHE SAID. 
          YEAH, AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THE, THAT, UM, THE, ALL THE DETAILS OF THAT WERE NOT KNOWN WHEN THE CITATION WAS WRITTEN. 
          UM, HOWEVER, WE HAVE A NORMAL PROGRESSION FOR OUR CASES. 
          UM, AND SO IF WE SEND A NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND WE GIVE YOU A CONTI COMPLIANCE TIMEFRAME AND NO ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE FOR EXTENSIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, UM, THEN WE ESCALATE IT LEGALLY AND SO WE CAN ESCALATE IT TO ADMIN HEARING, OF COURSE MUNICIPAL COURT OR BSC. 
          AND SO THE PROGRESSION WAS THAT THE OFFICER THEN STARTED WITH ADMIN HEARING AND THERE WAS NO RESPONSE. 
          SO THEN HE ESCALATED IT TO THE NEXT, WHICH WAS MUNICIPAL COURT. 
          UM, AND OF COURSE WITH NO REPAIRS BEING MADE THAT ENDED IT UP HERE TONIGHT. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION AS WELL. 
          UM, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          QUESTION AS FAR AS THESE, UH, INSPECTIONS GO BACK TO 2022, WERE THERE ANY PRIOR, UM, ISSUES WITH, WITH THIS ADDRESS? UM, THERE WERE PRIOR CODE CASES. 
          I WASN'T INVOLVED IN 'EM, SO I DON'T HAVE THAT WHOLE HISTORY WITH ME. 
          UM, JUST WHEN I TOOK THE CASE OVER, I MOVED FORWARD WITH IT, BUT THERE WERE IN FACT, AS SHE STATED, UM, PRIOR CODE CASES CALLED IN ON THE PROPERTY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE THE 2022 DATE? AT A MINIMUM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE OWNER ACTUALLY STATED THAT SHE MOVED FROM AUSTIN, TEXAS IN 2005, UM, AND WAS LAST IN TEXAS, I MEAN AUSTIN, TEXAS, UM, AT THIS PROPERTY IN 2015, I THINK SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE, BUT HASN'T BEEN SINCE THEN. 
          SHE ADMITTED. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MM-HMM . 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION TO CLOSE. 
          NEED A SECOND, SECOND MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          ALL IN, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL. 
          VOTE. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWN. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GARZA. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ NAY. 
          COMMISSIONER GILKER AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER IBARRA AYE. 
          CHAIR VOTES. 
          AYE. 
          JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHY WE, WHY DO YOU NOT WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? 'CAUSE I, I THINK IT'S, OH, NO. 
          CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I THOUGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          NO, IT'S JUST CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          OKAY. 
          SORRY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO IT'S UNANIMOUS TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          WE VOTING NOW, NOW WE NEED A MOTION FOR WHAT TO DO AT THIS PROPERTY. 
          WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION STAFF. 
          THERE'S A, A THING THE EXHIBITS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO COMMISSIONER KER. 
          I'M GONNA PASS AROUND THE, PASS THIS AROUND TO THE, TO YOU GUYS. 
          DO THEY NEED TO ADMIT THOSE? WE NEED TO ADMIT THEM UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION. 
          I'LL ADMIT. 
          THIS INFORMATION SHEET PROVIDED BY MS. CLEMENTS COMMISSIONERS, WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I'M SORRY, CHAIR, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IF YOU COULD SAY HEARING NONE, UH, THE EXHIBIT IS SO ADMITTED. 
          YES. 
          HEARING NONE THE THE EXHIBIT IS ADMITTED. 
          UM, I'D LOVE TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          I DO NOT HAVE ALL OF THE LANGUAGE I WOULD NEED TO MAKE THE MOTION. 
          I WANT. 
          , WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? UH, WHAT TYPE OF OF MOTION WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE? BECAUSE STUFF MAY HAVE SOME LANGUAGE. 
          UH, I WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE REP, MAKE A, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO REPLACE, 
          [00:30:01]
UM, THE RECOMMENDED ORDER. 
          HMM. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          DO YOU NEED COMMEND? DO YOU NEED THE LANGUAGE FOR, UH, DO YOU WANT TO DEMOLISH? YEAH, I NEED ALL THE DEMOLISHED LANGUAGE. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          LIKE I HAVE THE MOTION LANGUAGE. 
          I DON'T HAVE WHAT I'M REPLACING IT WITH. 
          CAN I JUST SAY WHAT I ? YES. 
          AND THEN WE CAN, WE CAN CRAFT IT. 
          SO I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MOVE TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING IN LIEU OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER, UM, DEMOLITION INSTEAD OF REPAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO YOU WISH TO MODIFY THE EXISTING, OR I'M SORRY, TO MODIFY THE SAS RECOMMENDED ORDER AND IT'S AND REPLACE THE REPAIR WITH A DEMOLITION. 
          YES. 
          AND THEN DO YOU HAVE ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME? UM, CURRENTLY THEY'RE AT 45 DAYS TO REPAIR MM-HMM . 
          NO, I THINK THAT'S GOOD. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT AT LEAST IS ABOVE 30 DAYS, WHICH IS NORMALLY THE RECOMMENDED MINIMUM. 
          MM-HMM . 
          BUT SINCE THIS IS A DEMO MM-HMM . 
          I WOULD RECOMMEND AT LEAST 45 MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          UH, YEAH, I JUST DON'T HAVE ALL THE RAKING LANGUAGE  INVOLVED. 
          UM, JAMES, I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE. 
          CORRECT. 
          AM I MISSING THAT IN THE FOLDER? THE LANGUAGE ABOUT RANKING, DOES THAT HAVE LIKE THE FULL SPECIFICATIONS FOR WHAT DEMOLITION MEANS? NO. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, IT'S NOT THERE. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT HE'S GOT SOMETHING THAT WILL WORK. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          SO HERE WE GO FOLKS. 
          I MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND MOVE TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING. 
          IN LIEU OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER THE OWNER, UH, ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF OF THE STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. 
          AND REMOVE AS DEBRIS LEAVING THE LOT CLEAN AND RATE AND C UH, REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM THE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH A AND B. 
          ON THE 46TH DAY, IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, AUTHORIZE THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE FIRE DAMAGE COM. 
          ALL PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY INCLU, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURE AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF SUCH B 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 WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND RECORDED WITH THE TRAVIS COUNTY DEEDS RECORDS. 
          ANDRA SHALL ACCRUE AT A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I NEED A SECOND. 
          DID I? ONE SECOND. 
          NOT YET. 
          I SECOND. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE A SECOND. 
          MM-HMM . 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          I'LL DO A ROLL CALL. 
          VOTE. 
          OH, WE HAVE DISCUSSION. 
          AH, OKAY. 
          WE CAN TALK. 
          YEAH. 
          SO HERE'S MY THINKING. 
          UM, WE CAN ORDER A REPAIR THAT COMES WITH A PENALTY FINE. 
          UM, WHICH WILL ONLY INCREASE OVER TIME WHEN NO ACTION IS TAKEN. 
          UM, OR WE CAN ORDER DEMOLITION, WHICH DOES NOT CARRY A PENALTY OTHER THAN REIMBURSING THE CITY FOR THE COSTS OF THE DEMOLITION. 
          AND THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL PRESUMABLY WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, DEPENDING ON CODE'S CAPACITY FOR DEMOLITIONS RIGHT NOW, UM, THE MATTER WILL BE SOLVED FOR THE . 
          UM, ARE WE OPEN FOR YEAH, WE'RE, WE'RE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION, OPEN FOR DISCUSSION MM-HMM . 
          ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THE, UM, THE NEIGHBORS COMING AND TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE NEED TO, THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          UM, TO CITY STAFF'S POINT, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS BUILDING IS STILL, UM, IN A CONDITION THAT COULD BE SALVAGED AND, UM, PROVIDE A HOMESTEAD FOR SOMEBODY IN THE FUTURE. 
          UM, MAY NOT BE OUR CURRENT, UH, OWNER, BUT 
          [00:35:01]
SOMEBODY ELSE. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD AT ANY RATE, TRY TO SALVAGE AS MUCH AS WE CAN IN AUSTIN THESE HOMES. 
          UM, AT ANY STATE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A GREAT PROPERTY THAT WE COULD BE ABLE TO, TO SALVAGE. 
          I WOULD, UM, RECOMMEND PERHAPS HAVING A REVISIT, UM, WITH THIS COMMISSION IN THE 45 DAYS IF THIS, UM, RECOMMENDATION IS NOT HELD. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE SORT OF WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS COME BACK AND SEE IF ANY CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE AT THAT TIME. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER GARZA, IF I MAY, IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH YOU WERE ASKED, ARE YOU REQUESTING WHAT AMOUNTS TO A CONTINUANCE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE GATHERED TO HELP YOU MAKE A DECISION? I WOULD LIKE TO, OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING? LIKE TO KEEP, UM, THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION WITH THE ADDITION OF A, UM, A TO COME BACK AND, UM, TO SEE AT THAT TIME IN 45 DAYS WHAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. 
          I SEE. 
          SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE THE REPAIR ORDER, BUT INSTEAD OF EVERYTHING BEING REPAIRED WITHIN 45 DAYS, IT WOULD BE COMING BACK WITHIN 45 DAYS TO THIS COMMISSION. 
          AND THEN THERE'S A STATUS UPDATE, ESSENTIALLY, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. 
          WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT. 
          CORRECT. 
          EXACTLY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? I THINK I JUST, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROPERTY OWNER CONTINUING TO ACCUMULATE FEES WITH THE CITY. 
          I FEEL LIKE THERE SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE, UM, UH, OUTREACH TO THE HOMEOWNER. 
          LIKE THERE SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OUTREACH TO MAYBE STAFF CAN HELP WITH THIS. 
          HOW MUCH MUCH OUTREACH HAVE YOU HAD THIS PROPERTY OWNER? SO THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THIS CASE, SPECIFICALLY BEGINNING IN 2022, IT'S BEEN A CONSTANT EBB AND FLOW WITH HER AS FAR AS COMMUNICATION. 
          SO WE'LL REACH OUT, SHE'LL BE IN TOTAL CORRESPONDENCE, SHE'LL BE IN AGREEMENT. 
          LIKE AT ONE POINT SHE STATED THAT SHE WOULD SEND A CONTRACTOR OUT TO MEET ONE OF THE INSPECTORS, NEVER HAPPENED. 
          THEN SHE WON'T ANSWER OUR PHONE CALLS FOR A WHILE, AND THEN MONTHS, MONTHS LATER, SHE'LL ANSWER OUR PHONE CALLS, UM, AND THEN BE IN AGREEMENT AGAIN TO WORK ON IT. 
          UM, IT'S JUST CONSTANTLY LIKE THAT. 
          AND MOST RECENTLY, WITHIN THE PAST COUPLE MONTHS, WE HAD OUR CODE SOCIAL WORKER REACH OUT TO HER AND LEAVE A, A DETAILED VOICEMAIL SAYING, HEY, WE KNOW THIS IS GOING ON AT YOUR PROPERTY. 
          WE'D LIKE TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE IF WE CAN OR, OR POINT YOU IN THE DIRECTION OF, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY THAT CAN MAYBE HELP YOU WITH POSSIBLE REPAIRS. 
          AND SHE NEVER RETURNED TO HIS PHONE CALL EITHER. 
          UM, I I ALSO FEEL LIKE IF THE SOCIAL WORKER IS IN, UM, COMMUNICATION OR YOU HAVE, UM, REFERRED THIS PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOCIAL WORKER, THE SOCIAL WORKER SHOULD BE HERE ALSO. 
          SO WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS BECAUSE I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM NOW, YOU KNOW. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          WELL, I, AND OBVIOUSLY, UH, I KNOW THAT, UM, HE REACHED OUT TO HER AND LEFT VOICEMAILS. 
          THAT'S ALL I KNOW. 
          SO YEAH, I GUESS WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION. 
          WE WANNA TALK. 
          I'M SORRY, I WAS GONNA ADD A LITTLE BIT TO THAT. 
          ELAINE GAR AHEAD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR AHEAD, UH, I DO KNOW THAT THE SOCIAL WORKER DID HAVE, AT ONE TIME A CONTACT WITH HER. 
          SHE SPOKE TO HIM ON THE PHONE, BUT AS SHE DID WITH OUR INSPECTORS, UH, SHE STOPPED COMMUNICATING WITH HIM AS WELL. 
          UH, SO HE DID DO AN OUTREACH, I THINK HE DID A SITE VISIT TO THAT LOCATION AS WELL, BECAUSE HE SAID THAT HE WAS LOOKING AT THE CONDITIONS HIMSELF AND WHAT SHE DESCRIBED TO HIM. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, AGAIN, THE COMMUNICATION JUST STOPPED. 
          MM-HMM . 
          MM-HMM . 
          YEAH. 
          I, I KNOW, AND AGAIN, THE MENTION WAS SHE'S ELDERLY AND THAT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T ALWAYS, IT'S NOT LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE GOING ON THERE THAN JUST A REGULAR, YOU KNOW, ANSWER THE PHONE ALL THE TIME AND ALL THAT. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I THINK WE NEED TO VOTE A ROLL CALL VOTE BASED ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR FOR FULL DEMOLITION. 
          AND THE SECOND COMMISSIONER BROWN. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GARZA. 
          NAY. 
          COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ NAY. 
          COMMISSIONER GILKER. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER NABARRO. 
          SORRY. 
          PARDON ME. 
          NAY. 
          NAY. 
          COMMISSIONER RICKY BARRO. 
          AYE. 
          AND CHAIR VOTES. 
          AYE. 
          WHICH MEANS WE'RE AT THREE TO THREE AND THE MOTION FAILS. 
          MM-HMM . 
          YOU NEED A NEW MOTION? YOU NEED A NEW MOTION? OKAY. 
          I'M GONNA, CAN I TAKE A STAB AT THIS WITH THE NEW VERBIAGE? 
          [00:40:01]
YES. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVE TO ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER. 
          UM, THE ADDITION OF A REVISION TO COME BACK IN OUR, WHAT IS THAT MAY 27TH MEETING? YES. 
          IT WOULDN'T QUITE BE 45 DAYS BECAUSE WE DON'T MEET UNTIL THE LAST WEDNESDAY OF EVERY MONTH. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO IT WOULD BE THE MAY 27TH, 27TH OR YES. 
          MAY 27TH MEETING. 
          SO AS I UNDERSTAND THE MOTION TO BE, IT WOULD BE TO ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED. 
          OWNER IS TO OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, CORRECT ALL VIOLATIONS CITED TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED REQUEST INSPECTIONS TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE. 
          BUT THEN IN LIEU OF THE 46TH DAY, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE OWNER WOULD, OR THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE COMING BACK TO THE BSC ON THE MAY 28TH OR 27TH MEETING FOR A FOLLOW UP? YES. 
          IS WHAT I'M HEARING. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S A MOTION YOU COULD SAY THAT'S, IS THAT YOUR MOTION? YES, THAT'S MY MOTION. 
          . 
          PERFECT. 
          AND NOW WE NEED A SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS MOTION? YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. 
          SO, UM, ONE I WANNA VERIFY WE'RE NOT ASSESSING FINES ON THE 46TH DAY AS I UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT MOTION TO BE. 
          NO. 
          BECAUSE IT WILL BE A FOLLOW UP INSTEAD ON THE MAY 27TH MEETING. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND, UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT MORE AND MAKE SURE THAT STAFF HERE, WHAT INFORMATION DO WE WANT ON THAT DAY? WHAT DOES AN UPDATE MEAN? SO I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE ARE SEEING ANY MOVEMENT FROM EITHER THE SOCIAL WORKER OR THE OWNER TO MAKE, UM, ANY, UM, UPDATES TO THE STRUCTURE OR TO THE BUILDING. 
          AND THEN, UM, WE CAN DECIDE AGAIN THAT IF WE'RE NOT SEEING THIS, WE CAN, UM, MOVE FORWARD WITH PENALTIES OR DECIDE IF DEMOLITION AT THAT POINT IS APPROPRIATE NOW THAT IT'S BEEN IN FRONT OF THE, THE COMMITTEE. 
          IS THAT REAL? SO IS THIS EFFECTIVELY A CONTINUANCE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? WELL, AND AND THAT WAS PARTIALLY MY QUESTION AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE THERE IS AN OPTION, UM, COMMISSION COMMISSIONER AND ALSO COMMISSION TO DO WHAT'S CALLED A CONTINUANCE UNDER OUR RULES BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ASKING FOR MORE INFORMATION OR MORE EVIDENCE TO SEE WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION, UM, AND ULTIMATELY ISSUE AN ORDER. 
          AND SO I THINK A CONTINUANCE MAY ACTUALLY BE MORE APPROPRIATE, WHICH IS UNDER RULE 4 0 7, SO THAT THIS WAY WE CAN POSTPONE THE CASE WITH A TIME CERTAIN FOR MAY 27TH, AND THEN WHEN YOU ALL COME BACK, YOU CAN GET THAT STATUS UPDATE AND WE CAN HAVE A SOMEWHAT CLEANER ORDER FROM THE BSC. 
          UM, SO I, I RECOMMEND GOING WITH THE CONTINUANCE AND WE CAN DO IT IN THE FORM OF THIS ORDER, BUT I THINK THE CONTINUANCE IS CLEANER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE MOVE TO CONTINUE THE CASE UNTIL MAY 27TH SO THAT THE PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVE CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF A DO WE NEED TO WITHDRAW THE PREVIOUS MOTION? YES. 
          AND, AND WE'LL, WE'LL DEFINITELY GET TO THAT, BUT YES, ESSENTIALLY THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD BE. 
          OKAY. 
          IT WOULD BE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE TIME CERTAIN, AND THEN YOU WOULD WANNA OUTLINE WHAT INFORMATION THAT Y'ALL DISCUSSED. 
          MM-HMM . 
          YOU WOULD BE LOOKING FOR STAFF OR THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE TO PROVIDE AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          UM, BUT OF COURSE YOU WOULD NEED TO WITHDRAW THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE TABLE SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION TO CONTINUE. 
          OKAY? MM-HMM . 
          DO I WITHDRAW OR IS THAT OKAY? I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU, THE, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. 
          SO NOW WE NEED A NEW MOTION. 
          YOU WOULD LIKE TO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, CONTINUE THIS FOR TWO MONTHS. 
          YES. 
          TILL MAY 27TH. 
          I NEED A SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE THIS CASE FOR TWO MONTHS. 
          YES. 
          AND, AND THANK YOU. 
          BEFORE I FORGET, UM, WHAT INFORMATION WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE PROVIDED ON THAT, THAT DATE? SO THE CORRECTION OF VIOLATIONS. 
          SO, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU'RE ASKING STAFF TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE CONTINUING, BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING FOR MORE INFORMATION 
          [00:45:01]
TO BE PROVIDED. 
          SO ARE YOU ASKING FOR INFORMATION RELATED TO THE REPAIRS OR INFORMATION? AN UPDATE FROM THE SOCIAL WORKER? I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT STAFF HAS SOME DIRECTION AS FAR AS WHAT THEY NEED TO BRING BACK. 
          AND EVEN IF THE PROPERTY OWNER, ASSUMING THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS A REPRESENTATIVE IN THAT TIME, THEY ALSO NEED TO BE AWARE OF WHAT INFORMATION TO BRING BACK. 
          YEAH. 
          AND THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          WE DON'T WANT TO BE EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE IN TWO MONTHS. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND STILL, AND ASK FOR IT AGAIN. 
          THAT DOESN'T, THAT'S NOT BENEFICIAL TO ANYBODY. 
          SO, UM, FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, COULD YOU PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN TWO MONTHS OUT? WELL, I WOULD, I, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, WHAT I WOULD THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          UM, UH, AS I WAS SAYING, SOME, SOME MORE OUTREACH. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, IF, UM, MY ELDERLY GRANDMOTHER LIVED WITH ME AND I TOOK CARE OF HER, WHATEVER SHE NEEDED, RIGHT? SO THERE'S GOTTA BE SOMEBODY THAT THIS PERSON'S LIVING WITH, SOMEBODY THAT HELPS THEM AND MAYBE GET IN CONTACT WITH THAT PERSON, MAYBE BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER. 
          UM, I THINK THAT WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN, UM, IS LIKE, UH, SOMEBODY ON THEIR OWN IS OVERWHELMED AND JUST DOESN'T RESPOND AT ALL BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY, THEY DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION, THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW IT'S, IT'S JUST TOO MUCH FOR ONE PERSON TO HANDLE. 
          SO THEY JUST DON'T DO ANYTHING. 
          SO THAT MIGHT BE THE SITUATION HERE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT IT IS? I DON'T THINK THAT PEOPLE JUST ABANDON THEIR PROPERTIES AND DON'T CARE. 
          JUST LIKE YOU SAID, SHE, SHE SAID SHE, IT HAS SO, SO MUCH VALUE TO HER SENTIMENTAL VALUE. 
          SO I, I DON'T THINK THAT SHE DOESN'T CARE. 
          I THINK SHE CARES ABOUT IT. 
          THERE'S JUST SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON. 
          I, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IT IS. 
          UM, I CAN ALSO, I CAN ELABORATE A LITTLE MORE ON OUR CONVERSATION. 
          SO THE DAY I TALKED TO HER IN NOVEMBER, UM, IT WAS AN, OUR CONVERSATION . 
          SO THERE'S DEFINITELY THAT. 
          UM, AND DEFINITELY TRYING TO ERR ON THE SIDE OF THE FACT THAT THIS IS A PUBLIC NUISANCE FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND THEN ALSO BE COMPASSIONATE TOWARDS HER, UM, EXPLAINING. 
          AND LIKE I HAD SAID BEFORE, UM, I ASKED HER, I GAVE HER OPTIONS. 
          I SAID, IF SOMEBODY CAN DO THIS TO HELP YOU, IF A CHURCH CAN HELP YOU, IF SOMEONE CAN SIT THERE AND YOU CAN DIRECT 'EM ON HOW TO CLEAN THIS PROPERTY, SHE SAID, I CAN'T GET THERE. 
          I'M DISABLED. 
          I CAN'T GET THERE. 
          I ASKED HER WHO SHE LIVED WITH. 
          I MEAN, IT WAS A VERY DETAILED CONVERSATION AGAIN FOR AN HOUR. 
          AND UM, AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE COULD BE OTHER ISSUES THAT GOING ON. 
          OF COURSE, SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO DIVULGE EVERYTHING TO ME, BUT, UM, SHE SAID SHE HAS AN ESTRANGED SON THAT LIVES SOMEWHERE ELSE. 
          THEY DON'T TALK ANYMORE. 
          HE USED TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPERTY. 
          IN FACT, HE'S TALKED TO THEM BEFORE. 
          UM, SO THAT'S HER ONLY, ONLY SON. 
          SHE SAID THAT HER, SHE WENT UP THERE TO TAKE CARE OF HER MOTHER WHO PASSED AWAY. 
          SO IT'S HER ALONE IN THAT HOUSE. 
          UM, I ASKED HER IF THERE'S ANYONE THAT COULD DRIVE HER HERE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          HE SAID NO. 
          SHE SAID, I HAVE ONE FRIEND IN AUSTIN, I'M GONNA REACH OUT TO THEM AND SEE IF THEY CAN HELP ME. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND THEN THAT WAS AFTER, THAT WAS WHEN WE, SHE WOULD NEVER RETURN MY PHONE CALLS ANYMORE. 
          SO I I, I WAS TRULY, UM, LOOKING FOR ANY OUTLET TO TRY TO HELP HER BECAUSE I DID ACTUALLY FEEL BAD FOR HER AS WELL. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, BEING ELDERLY, RAISING OUR KID IN THIS HOUSE, HAVING SENTIMENTAL VALUE, UM, THE HOUSES OF NO VALUE TO ANYONE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OBVIOUSLY, BUT TO ALL VALUE TO HER MM-HMM . 
          AND SO THAT MEANT A LOT TO ME. 
          AND SO I I I THREW UP A LOT OF DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR HER JUST TRYING TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING, IF WE PUT HER IN CONTACT WITH ANYONE, IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO HELP HER. 
          AND BASICALLY IN ALL THOSE AREAS SHE SAID NO. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MIGHT WANT TO HEAR FROM THE STAFF SOCIAL WORKER NEXT TIME. 
          IS THAT YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR CONTINUANCE STILL BOARD. 
          DO WE STILL NEED TO ADD TO THAT? IF WE COULD PERHAPS EVEN GET A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? UM, COMMISSIONER BARRA. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION BY SPECIFYING THAT WE WOULD, THE COMMISSION WOULD APPRECIATE, THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE SOCIAL WORKER IN THE NEXT ITERATION WHEN WE TAKE THIS CASE UP AGAIN ON MAY 27TH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND COMMISSIONER GSA, DO YOU ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION? I ACCEPT. 
          SO THEN, UH, THE VOTE WILL FIRST BE ON THE MOTION AS AMEND THE, THE, THE ULTIMATE VOTE WILL BE ON THE MOTION 
          [00:50:01]
TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING TO MAY THE 27TH AS AMENDED BY COMMISSIONER, UH, IVARRA. 
          UM, WHICH WOULD BE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS THE SOCIAL WORKER AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          IS THIS WHEN I WOULD ASK QUESTIONS, UH, BEFORE WE VOTE, OR, OH, OKAY. 
          YES. 
          SO BECAUSE WE, WE PASS THE AMENDMENTS DONE. 
          SO THIS IS, IT'S OKAY FOR ME TO TALK ABOUT THE MOTION ITSELF NOW, CORRECT? YES. 
          SO THERE'S STILL AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DISCUSSION. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MM-HMM . 
          WE HAD THE MOTION FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD MM-HMM . 
          UM, I THINK MY, UM, I THINK MY BROADER QUESTION IS JUST WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF CASES WHERE THERE IS NOT, UM, A PROPERTY OWNER WHO CAN BE GOTTEN AHOLD OF. 
          SOMETIMES IT'S BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS DIED AND WE'RE IN A REALLY COMPLICATED PROBATE SITUATION. 
          UM, I I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS, UM, ANYTHING SIMILAR TO LIKE A PUBLIC DEFENDER OPTION  FOR PROPERTY. 
          LIKE IS THERE SOMEONE WHO CAN, UH, REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, IN THESE CASES OR, UM, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE SEEN A MODELS OF THAT WE MIGHT WANNA LOOK INTO LATER? HOMEOWNER ADVOCATE? YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          HAVING A, AN OWNER ADVOCATE. 
          THIS IS PROBABLY, THIS IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF, OF THIS ITEM, BUT I I'M JUST NOTICING A PATTERN. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT'S COMING UP. 
          I AM TOO. 
          AND I DO, I DO THINK THERE SHOULD BE OTHER OPTIONS OF OTHER AVENUES THAN JUST KEEP BIN THEM AND BRINGING THEM HERE AND THEY DON'T SHOW UP OR PAY. 
          YEAH. 
          AND UM, THE OTHER THING IS, I, I JUST, UM, A COMMENT, I I REALLY APPRECIATE KIND OF THE ENGAGEMENT OF THE COMMISSION ON THESE HARD QUESTIONS. 
          'CAUSE THESE ARE, THEY'RE BIG CONSEQUENCES. 
          UM, WE DON'T WANT TO DEPRIVE SOMEONE OF, OF THEIR PROPERTY, UM, OR MAKE, UH, NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS. 
          THINK SIMILARLY, WE, UH, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES WHEN PROPERTIES ARE LEFT ABANDONED. 
          UM, IF THIS PROPERTY CAUGHT FIRE NEXT MONTH, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD, THERE COULD BE BIG CONSEQUENCES. 
          SO I, I JUST APPRECIATE THE SERIOUSNESS WITH WHICH THE COMMISSION IS TAKING THIS ITEM. 
          YEAH. 
          ELAINE GARRETT AGAIN, TO ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, THE SOCIAL WORKER DOES HAVE ACCESS TO VARIOUS AREAS THAT HE'S GOT AS AN OUTREACH, RIGHT? SO THAT MAY BE ONE THAT HE COULD BRING BACK TO DISCUSS AT THE NEXT MEETING, UH, ON WHAT, WHAT THE ATTEMPTS WERE FOR THAT REGARDING LEGAL OUTREACH, UH, BRINGING THE CASES HERE, UH, THEY'VE REACHED AT A CERTAIN LEVEL WHERE YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A DETERMINATION OF IT AND IT, IT, IT ASKS FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF THE COMMISSION FOR THAT HELP. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UH, AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND TOO THAT THERE'S PUBLIC INTEREST ON BOTH ENDS. 
          THE IMPACT THAT THESE, UH, SOME OF THESE, AS YOU SAID 'EM MINUTE AGO, VACANT STRUCTURES HAVE ON NEIGHBORHOODS, UH HA HAS A ROLE IN IT AS WELL. 
          UM, BUT WE, WE WILL GET THAT TO THE SOBER PATROL WORKER SO THAT HE CAN BRING THAT INFORMATION AND UH, COUNSEL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE OUR COMMISSION CAN REQUIRE REPAIR OR REQUIRE DEMOLITION. 
          WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANOTHER OPTION. 
          CORRECT. 
          I MEAN FOR THE MOST PART WHEN IT COMES TO STRUCTURES, IT'S REPAIR OR TO DEMO. 
          MM-HMM  OKAY. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND AN AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY EVERYBODY SO I THINK IT'S TIME FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWN. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GARZA. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GILKER. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER AB IBARRA AYE. 
          AND CHAIR VOTES? AYE. 
          SO IT IS UNANIMOUS. 
          WE HAVE A REQUEST. 
          THAT ISSUE IS, THIS PROJECT IS NOW CLOSED AND WE'LL SEE IT AGAIN IN ABOUT 60 DAYS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          WHERE IS MY AGENDA? ALRIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE THAT REPRESENTS THE PROPERTY ON MES MEADOW? HEARING NONE, WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE REPRESENTING THE CAESAR CHAVEZ PROPERTY. 
          [00:55:02]
NO, I DON'T THINK SO. 
          BUT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY ON SOUTH FIRST STREET. 
          CORRECT. 
          WITH THE COMMISSION'S AGREEMENT. 
          I'D LIKE TO TAKE THAT ONE OUT OF ORDER AND WE'LL DO IT FIRST TO GET THESE PEOPLE IN AND OUT HERE. 
          SO WE CALL THE 
          [6. Case Number: CL 2025-082106 ]
CASE FOR FORTY THREE THIRTEEN SOUTH FIRST STREET. 
          ITEM NUMBER SIX ON THE AGENDA, CL 2 0 2 5 DASH 0 8 2 1 0 6 IS A RETURNING CASE REGARDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4 3 1 3 SOUTH FIRST STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS 4 3 1 5 SOUTH FIRST STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS ICONIC AT SOUTH FIRST APARTMENTS. 
          STAFF EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GRAY BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. 
          HERE'S SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE. 
          THIS CASE IS REGARDING A FIRE DAMAGE COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE. 
          IT'S A RETURNING CASE ORIGINALLY BROUGHT UH, TO THE COMMISSION IN OCTOBER OF 2025. 
          IN OCTOBER OF 2025. 
          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. 
          IF COMPARES, UH, IF FOR REPAIRS WERE NOT COMPLETE AS OF TODAY'S DATE, THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN VIOLATION AND THE CIVIL PENALTY IS $18,714 AND 29 CENTS AND CONTINUES TO ACCRUE THE STRUCTURES REMAIN IN DISREPAIR, CREATE A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND ARE CONSIDERED DANGEROUS AND HAZARDOUS WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE REPAIR. 
          WE ARE NOW RECOMMENDING MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING ORDER FROM REPAIR TO DEMOLITION WITH THE CURRENT PENALTIES TO STOP ACCRUING BUT REMAIN IN PLACE IN YOUR READER OR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. 
          YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING PREVIOUSLY ADMITTED EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO H EXHIBIT THREE WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT AND CASE HISTORY. 
          THE COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTING. 
          UH, FIRE INCIDENT REPORT, A COPY OF THE EXISTING BSC ORDER, UM, TRV 2 0 2 5 161 64 AND A PENALTY STATEMENT THROUGH TODAY'S DATE. 
          AND EXHIBIT FOUR WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR H IN THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE. 
          INVESTIGATOR FARRAH PRESLEY IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE EXHIBIT PHOTOS AND WILL DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED. 
          INVESTIGATOR PRESSLEY, UH, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS FARRAH PRESLEY AND I'M THE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE CODE REVIEW AND ESCALATIONS TEAM OF THE AUSTIN SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. 
          THE PROPERTY 4 43 13 SOUTH FIRST STREET, ALSO KNOWN AS ICONIC APARTMENTS, IS BEING BROUGHT FORTH TONIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEMO. 
          THIS IS AN ENTIRE APARTMENT BUILDING ALL CONNECTED. 
          THE BUILDING ALREADY HAD AN ACTIVE BSE ORDER FOR REPAIR. 
          THE OWNER WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF TRYING TO COMPLY THE ORDER FROM THE PREVIOUS ORDER AND THE FIRE DAMAGE UH, REPAIRED THE ROOF FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE COMPLEX. 
          THEY HAD IT FRAMED UP A NEW ROOF WHEN THE NEW FIRE HAD OCCURRED. 
          THEY HAD THE COMPLEX FENCED AND BORDERED AND SECURED WEEKLY. 
          THE OWNER WAS ALWAYS IN COMMUNICATION WITH CODE. 
          THIS DAMAGE TO THE COMPLEX WHEN HIS LAST FIRE IS JUST TOO MUCH TO REPAIR, IT IS NOW CONSIDERED DANGEROUS. 
          THERE IS NOT A WAY TO BOARD AND SECURE THIS AREA AND THE FENCE IS BEING BROKEN INTO DAILY. 
          THE OWNER HAS ALSO DONE A MASSIVE CLEANUP OF ALL THE JUNK AND RUBBISH LEFT ON SITE BEFORE THIS NEW FIRE. 
          PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE OWNER AND HE HAS HAS FOLLOWED SUIT WITH ALL RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO DEMO AS WELL SINCE ALL OF THE WORK AND PLANS HE HAS DONE TO DATE WERE RUINED WITH THIS NEWEST FIRE AND HE HAS PASSED HIS DEADLINE WITH HIS LAST BSE ORDER AND IS NOW ACCRUING WEEKLY FINES. 
          I I'LL NOW TAKE YOU THROUGH THE PHOTOS MARKED FOUR A THROUGH FOUR H. 
          THE OFFICE BUILDING OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX FOUR A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE MAIN A DRIVEWAY INTO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. 
          NEXT PHOTO EXHIBIT FOUR B SHOWS THE FENCING AND BOARD AND SECURING ON THE ENTIRE COMPLEX. 
          THIS COMPLEX IS ALL CONNECTED. 
          NEXT PHOTO EXHIBIT FOUR C SHOWS WHERE THE FENCING WAS REMOVED TO HELP FIREFIGHTERS CONTAIN THE FIRE. 
          EXHIBIT FOUR D SHOWS THE EXTENT OF DAMAGE DONE BY THE FIRE ON 2 2 20 26. 
          NEXT PHOTO. 
          UH, FOUR E. 
          THIS WAS THE FRAMEWORK BEING DONE TO COME TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PREVIOUS BSE ORDER BEFORE THE DAMAGE OF THE NEW FIRE. 
          EXHIBIT FOUR F IS A CONTEXTUAL VIEW OF THE DAMAGE OF THE LAST FIRE. 
          IT HAS DESTROYED ENOUGH OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE FRAMING OF THE BUILDING THAT A DEMO WOULD NEED TO BE DONE. 
          NEXT PHOTO EXHIBIT 4G IS A BACK CONTEXTUAL VIEW OF ALL THE DAMAGE. 
          NEXT PHOTO EXHIBIT FOUR HI WAS TRYING TO GET A BETTER PHOTO OF WHERE THE DAMAGE STOPPED AT THE CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE THE SECOND STORY IS ALMOST COMPLETELY GONE IN THE BACK. 
          AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE OWNER HAS BEEN TRYING DILIGENTLY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE SECOND FIRE. 
          THE OWNER AGREES WITH GETTING A DEMO ORDER. 
          I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER ADOPTING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE 
          [01:00:01]
EXISTING CONDITIONS, 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 HAZARDOUS 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 EXHIBITS FOUR A THROUGH FOUR H WHICH ARE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND VIOLATIONS. 
          STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO ADOPT THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THIS CASE FINDING OF FACT THE COMMISSION ISSUED ITS CURRENT ORDER T RV 2 0 2 5 1 1 6 1 6 4 ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2025 AND THIS WILL BE CALLED THE 2025 ORDER FINDING OF FACT THE 2025 ORDER WAS NOT TIMELY APPEALED AND THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THE 2025 ORDER COULD HAVE BEEN APPEALED HAS LAPSED FINDING A FACT IN ITS 2025 ORDER. 
          THE COMMISSION ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY OF $1,000 PER WEEK TO BEGIN ON THE 46TH DAY FROM THE DATE OF UH, THE ORDER WAS MAILED. 
          TO DATE, THE PROPERTY REMAINS IN VIOLATION AND PENALTIES HAVE ACCRUED IN THE AMOUNT OF $18,714 AND 29 CENTS AND CONTINUE TO ACCRUE. 
          STAFF ASKED THE COMMISSION TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS. 
          ONE ISSUE A NEW ORDER THAT WILL SUPERSEDE THE PRIOR REPAIR ORDER ISSUED ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2025 AND RECORDED AS 2 0 2 5 1 1 6 1 6 4 IN TRAVIS COUNTY DEED RECORDS ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2025. 
          TWO AFFIRM THE CIVIL PENALTY OF $18,714 AND 29 CENTS ASSIST FROM THE ORDER ISSUED OCTOBER 8TH, 2025 AND INTEREST WILL NO LONGER CONTINUE TO ACCRUE. 
          THREE. 
          ORDER THE OWNER COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING WITHIN 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED. 
          A, OBTAIN AND FINALIZE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. 
          B DEMOLISH ALL PORTIONS OF THE FIRE DAMAGE, COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE AND ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND REMOVE HIS DEBRIS LEAVING A LOT CLEAN AND RAKED AND C REQUEST INSPECTIONS FROM AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THREE A AND THREE B AND FOUR ON THE 46TH DAY. 
          IF COMPLIANCE HAS NOT BEEN ACHIEVED, A AUTHORIZED THE CODE OFFICIAL TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION AND TO CONSIDER ALL PORTIONS OF THE FIRE DAMAGED COMMERCIAL MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE, INCLUDING ANY ITEMS IN AND AROUND THE STRUCTURE AS DEBRIS AND DISPOSE OF AS SUCH. 
          AND B, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE ON NOTICE THAT THE CODE OFFICIAL IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS ALL EXPENSES 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 TRAVIS COUNTY DEED. 
          RECORDS INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL. 
          AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES THIS PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I SEE WE HAVE PROPERTY UNDER REPRESENTATIVES AT THE TABLE. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CODE OFFICIAL CHAIR. 
          WILL YOU ADMIT THE EXHIBITS? YES, I WILL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I WILL ADMIT EXHIBITS THREE AND FOUR A THROUGH FOUR H AND WE HAD PREVIOUS EXHIBITS OF ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO H. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO ALSO ADMIT THE COPY OF THIS EXHIBIT CAN DO THAT WHILE WE'RE AT IT, WE HAVE A PROPERTY UNDER EXHIBIT THAT WE'LL ADMIT AS WELL. 
          IF THERE'S QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION AND YOU HAVE NO QUESTIONS FOR THE CODE OFFICIALS, DO ANY OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? OH, UH, HOLD ON. 
          IF WE COULD HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER FIRST GIVE THEIR TESTIMONY AND THEN WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER. 
          OKAY. 
          IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED, PLEASE DO. 
          SOUNDS LIKE IT'S ON NOW. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS GRANT PINGER, UH, FROM WINSTEAD PC HERE IN AUSTIN AND THIS IS MICAH KING, ALSO FROM WINSTEAD. 
          WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY UNDER WPOI, AUSTIN MULTIFAMILY, LLC, AND WE ARE SEEKING EITHER A RESET OR ADDITIONAL TIME TO COMPLY GIVEN THE COMPLEX SITUATION THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. 
          THIS HAS TO DO WITH A PROPERTY THAT HAS SUFFERED TWO SEPARATE FIRE INCIDENTS. 
          THERE'S ON ONGOING LITIGATION IN ADDITION TO PROTRACTED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE INSURE INSURER INSTRUCTED THE OWNER THAT THEY COULD NOT DISTURB THE SITE WHILE THE CLAIM IS PENDING. 
          IN ADDITION, THERE HAVE BEEN STAFF CHANGES AT THE OWNERSHIP LEVEL AND THE CURRENT RESPONSIBLE PARTY IS PROACTIVELY INVOLVED IN ENSURING COMPLIANCE IN A FINAL RESOLUTION AND DEMOLITION EITHER PARTIALLY, UH, OR IN FULL. 
          WE ARE OFFERING INTO EVIDENCE THREE ITEMS. THE TIMELINE OF EVENTS SINCE THE FI, UH, THE FIRST FIRE, UH, AND TWO PRELIMINARY BIDS FROM GAMBIT CONSTRUCTION FOR TWO PHASES OF REPAIR. 
          THE FIRST FIRE HAPPENED APPROXIMATELY A WEEK AFTER, OR WEEK BEFORE RATHER, UH, THE OWNER ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY OUT FORECLOSURE. 
          THE SECOND FIRE HAPPENED RECENTLY ON FEBRUARY 2ND OF THIS YEAR. 
          AND 
          [01:05:01]
SO THE FIRES AND WORK TO DEMOLISH AND REPAIR ARE BEING TREATED TOGETHER FOR CLAIMS AND DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION IS DELAYED UNTIL THE INSURANCE, UH, ISSUE IS RESOLVED. 
          THE SITE IS SECURED, IS REQUIRED. 
          IT APPEARS THAT VANDALS HAVE DAMAGED THE FENCING AND THAT THE OWNER IS WORK. 
          THE OWNER IS WORKING TO GET THE FENCING CONTRACTOR TO MAKE REPAIRS. 
          IN FACT, THERE IS AN EXECUTED CONTRACT, UH, IN PLACE AS OF YESTERDAY. 
          UH, THAT WILL REINFORCE THE FENCING. 
          THERE ARE ALSO, UH, CURRENT PENDING INSPECTIONS OF THE FOUNDATIONS PER THE SECOND FIRE. 
          SO TO ORDER A DEMOLITION TODAY WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO ASSESS AND RECTIFY THE DAMAGE THE OWNERS INSTRUCTED THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT THE FENCING COMPANY ADDRESSES ADEQUATE FENCING WHILE IT MUST REMAIN IN PLACE. 
          IN ADDITION, AS SHOWN ON THE TIMELINE, THE CLIENT HAS, UH, EMPLOYED FIRMS TO MEET WITH THE CITY TO GO OVER WORK REQUIRED TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. 
          AND SO THEY'RE ACTIVELY COM THEY'RE ACTIVELY WORKING TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. 
          AS SUCH, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST ADDITIONAL TIME TO RESOLVE THE INSURANCE MATTER SO THAT WE CAN THEN BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED WITH DEMOLITION. 
          IN THE MEANTIME, WE WILL WORK TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY TO REMOVE SOME DEBRIS AND WE'LL WORK TO ENSURE THAT THE FENCING ISSUES ARE CONTINUOUSLY MONITORED AND ADDRESSED UNTIL AFTER DEMOLITION IS COMPLETED. 
          PURSUANT TO RULE 4 0 7 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THIS COMMISSION, WE ASK FOR A DEFERRAL OF FINAL ACTION, ALLOWING US TO RETURN IN 90 OR MORE DAYS TO RESUME THE HEARING BY PRESENTING EVIDENCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT OR AN ESTIMATED TIMELINE FOR OBTAINING ONE, AND TO PROVIDE TIME FOR THE INSURANCE ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED. 
          MOREOVER, CONSISTENT WITH, UH, RULE 5 0 2 AND AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED, THERE ARE OUTSTANDING INSPECTIONS, QUOTES, AND OTHER ISSUES THAT WOULD MAKE A 30 DAY ORDER TO COMPLETE THE WORK UNREASONABLE AND IMPRACTICAL. 
          THE TIME REQUIRED TO REASONABLY PERFORM THE WORK CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME, BUT MAY EXCEED 90 DAYS. 
          TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 2 1 4 0.00 1D PROVIDES THAT THE MUNICIPALITY MAY ORDER THE BUILDING TO BE VACATED, SECURED, REPAIRED, REMOVED, OR DEMOLISHED BY OWNER WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AS PROVIDED BY THE SECTION, THE SECOND FIRE AND LARGE EXTENT OF DAMAGE OCCURRED LAST MONTH. 
          AND THE WORK TO DEAL WITH THIS INSURER BE ALLOWED, BE ALLOWED BY INSURER TO DEMOLISH DETERMINE WHETHER DEMOLITION WILL BE PARTIAL OR FULL, AND GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TIME. 
          AS SUCH, WE ARE ASKING THAT TO THE EXTENT THE COMMISSION WERE TO ORDER DEMOLITION THAT THE REASONABLE TIME REQUIREMENTS COMPELS MORE THAN 90 DAYS FOR DEMOLITION. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          I QUESTION IF WE HAVE, IS NOW THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ASK, ALLOW THE COMMISSION TO ASK QUESTIONS? YES. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, FOR, DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME THAT YOU WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO COMMISSIONER? UH, YES. 
          UH, A QUESTION. 
          MICAH KING. 
          UH, SO REGARDING A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME ON WHEN WE'LL HAVE CERTAINTY AS TO, UH, DEMOLITION OR REPAIR, BECAUSE IT'S, UH, A QUESTION OF WILL IT BE A PARTIAL OR FULL DEMOLITION, UM, OR A COMBINATION OF A REPAIR IN A, A COMPLETE, COMPLETE REPLACEMENT. 
          SO THAT HINGES UPON, YOU KNOW, KNOWING A, A, A RESOLUTION OF THE INSURANCE ISSUE. 
          UM, AND THEN OF COURSE, UM, DEALING WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM, UM, TO COME UP WITH PLANS AND GET A PERMIT. 
          AND SO, YOU KNOW, UM, I THINK THAT IF WE CAME BACK IN TWO OR THREE MONTHS, I THINK WE WOULD HOPEFULLY HAVE MORE CERTAINTY BY THEN. 
          UM, AND, UM, BUT IT'S HARD TO PREDICT WITH COMPLETE ACCURACY. 
          UM, YES, I DO APOLOGIZE. 
          COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS. 
          UM, I WAS JUST INFORMED THAT APPARENTLY WE HAVE A, AN INTERESTED PARTY HERE FOR TESTIMONY. 
          YES. 
          UM, SO IF WE CAN PLEASE PAUSE OUR QUESTIONS AND HAVE THE INTERESTED PARTY TESTIFY, UM, WE CAN THEN RESUME WITH QUESTIONING. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          YES. 
          LET'S DO JUST THAT. 
          IF YOU GENTLEMEN WOULD STEP ASIDE AND ALLOW THEM TO STEP UP. 
          OKAY. 
          RIGHT THERE IS FINE. 
          WE HAVE THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          WERE YOU GENTLEMEN SWORN IN WHEN YOU ARRIVED? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          EVAN, WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOUR ANSWER? YES, MY NAME'S MICHAEL. 
          YOU COULD CALL ME NICK. 
          UH, THIS IS EVAN. 
          WE ARE NEIGHBORS TO THE BUILDING. 
          UH, WE LIVE IN A CONDO BUILDING JUST NORTH OF THE BUILDING THAT BURNED DOWN. 
          WE REPRESENT 18 PEOPLE. 
          WE'RE ON THE HOA BOARD TOGETHER. 
          TOGETHER. 
          UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE OUR EXPERIENCE WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE, IN THE BUILDING THAT GOES BACK FURTHER THAN THE TIMELINE THAT WAS SHARED. 
          UM, THIS IS THE THIRD TIME TOTAL THAT THE BUILDING 
          [01:10:01]
HAS CAUGHT ON FIRE, AND I THINK SQUATTERS HAVE BEEN IN, IN THE BUILDING SINCE THEN. 
          UM, SQUATTERS HAVE MADE A CLEAR PATH TO OUR BACKYARDS TOO, THAT THAT WAS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT 4G AND FOUR H. 
          UM, SO THEY'VE BEEN BREAKING INTO OUR FENCES. 
          UH, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE INSTANCES BACK IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER. 
          UM, TWO, TWO OF THE INSTANCES WAS FROM ONE OWNER. 
          ON THE SECOND TIME, THEY CAUGHT A FIRE ON HER BACK PATIO WITH ALL OF HER PATIO FURNITURE AND HER BELONGINGS. 
          UM, SQUATTERS HAVE ALSO CREATED JUST RECENTLY LADDERS TO GET INTO OTHER YARDS OUT OF THE BURN DOWN BUILDING. 
          UM, VERY CRAFTY. 
          UH, SQUATTERS HAVE BROKEN INTO MAILBOXES. 
          CARS LITTERED LARGE ITEMS LIKE MATTRESSES. 
          THREATENED OWNERS AND TENANTS USED OUR GARDEN HOSES TO BATH. 
          UH, THEY'VE CONFIRMED VERBALLY THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO CHILDREN LIVING IN THE BUILDING WITH THEM TOO. 
          AND THEN THE, WITH THE RECENT FIRE THAT, UH, HAPPENED IN FEBRUARY, WE NOW HAVE TO REPLACE OUR FENCE AGAIN. 
          UM, AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO BECAUSE OF THE SQUATTERS IN THE BUILDING ARE HARASSING THE CONTRACTORS AND ANY PROGRESS THAT THEY MAKE EVERY DAY THEY DESTROY AT NIGHT ONCE THE CONTRACTORS LEAVE THAT FENCE IS CURRENTLY OUR ONLY BARRIER TO, TO, TO KIND OF DEFEND US FROM THIS. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, MY NAME'S EVAN STRICKLAND. 
          UM, JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE WORST PICTURES YOU SAW IN THE EXHIBIT 4G AND FOUR H. 
          THAT IS THE SIDE THAT IS DIRECTLY AGAINST OUR BUILDING, SEPARATED BY NOT VERY MANY METERS AT ONE POINT. 
          UM, I MEAN CERTAINLY IT'S A TERRIBLE EYESORE. 
          PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, UH, SQUATTERS AND OTHER PEOPLE JUST MILLING ABOUT SEEMED TO LIKE TO HANG OUT IN A BURN DOWN BUILDING JUST WITHIN THE BURN DOWN FRAME. 
          UM, YOU WERE SOMEWHAT VERBALLY ASSAULTED BY PEOPLE JUST IN THERE. 
          WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS WITH THE STRANGE GAMBLING, GAMBLING ESTABLISHMENTS THAT HAVE CROPPED UP ALL AROUND THAT PART. 
          AND NOW THERE'S JUST THIS NICE LITTLE PLACE FOR THEM. 
          UM, I GUESS MY MAIN CONCERN IS WHILE I, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR INSURANCE TO DO THEIR PART, I DON'T FEEL THAT THIS FENCE IS ANY GUARANTEE IT'S GONNA REALLY SOLVE ANYTHING. 
          IS THERE ANYONE GONNA COME CHECK ON THE FENCE? UM, THEY'RE JUST GONNA CUT A HOLE IN IT, BE LIVING THERE FOR THREE MONTHS AS THIS DRAGS ON. 
          WE HAVE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY. 
          AT LEAST ONE PERSON CURRENTLY AT OUR PLACE. 
          SO THIS IS JUST YEAH, A MAJOR PROBLEM. 
          UM, I DON'T LIVE THERE THANKFULLY, , BUT I HAVE A TENANT AND I FEEL BAD FOR THEM AND I GO OVER THERE TO HELP, YOU KNOW, DO MAINTENANCE AND EVERYTHING AND YEAH, IT'S A DISASTER. 
          UM, JUST HAVING THAT BUILDING THERE WITH JUST PEOPLE FREELY COMING IN AND OUT. 
          SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT Y'ALL WILL PLAN TO DO, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN FORCE THEM TO HAVE SECURITY THERE OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL BETTER. 
          'CAUSE RIGHT NOW, APPARENTLY THE AUSTIN POLICE, YOU KNOW, THEY SAID THEY WOULD COME BY MORE OFTEN, BUT THEY'RE JUST PEOPLE THERE ALL THE TIME WANDERING IN AND OUT OF OUR PROPERTY AND IT'S A MAJOR PROBLEM. 
          SO IT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO ADD, SO THANK YOU. 
          DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO THE CODE OFFICIALS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THESE WITNESSES? NO, I SURE DON'T. 
          THE PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVES HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THESE WITNESSES? NO. 
          NO. 
          YES. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO THE COMMISSION MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THESE WITNESSES? I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          FOR THE CITY STAFF, THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION IS FOR, UM, DEMOLITION AND THEN STARTING ON THE 46TH DAY, THEN THE CITY WOULD TAKE OVER THE DEMOLITION AND THERE WOULD BE A LIEN OF 10%. 
          IS THAT, AM I READING THAT RIGHT? THAT'S HOW IT READS, BUT WE DEFINITELY DO NOT HAVE THE BUDGET TO DO IT LIKE THAT. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND THE SUPERSEDED ORDER WAS JUST FOR, UM, THE RENOVATION OF THE FIRE? PREVIOUS FIRE DAMAGE? IT WAS, THE PREVIOUS ORDER WAS A REPAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          IT WAS NOT ANYWHERE NEAR AS FIRE DAMAGE AS IT IS NOW. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEY WERE IN THE MIDST OF DOING THE REPAIR. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          UM, SO MIKE, SORRY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, THIS IS FOR THE PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVES. 
          UM, THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING A DEMOLITION 
          [01:15:01]
ORDER. 
          WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY ABOUT, UM, THE, THE TIMEFRAME. 
          UH, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE DEMOLITION ORDER WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE OR IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT ORDER. 
          UH, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. 
          UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR EITHER A DIFFERENT ORDER OR FOR, UH, THE ABILITY TO COME BACK. 
          I MEAN, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT, UM, I HEAR THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS, UM, AND RESPECT THAT I, I THINK IN TERMS OF PRACTICAL OUTCOME, I DON'T KNOW THAT A DEMOLITION ORDER IS GONNA RESULT IN QUICKER DEMOLITION OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          UM, AND SO WE NEED MORE INFORMATION AND TIME TO WORK THINGS OUT IN ORDER TO COME BACK WITH A PLAN. 
          MM-HMM . 
          ABOUT ARE WE DOING A DEMOLITION OF THE ENTIRE SUPERSTRUCTURE OR PART OF IT MM-HMM . 
          UM, AND WE CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION TODAY. 
          THE LAST FIRE WAS JUST LAST MONTH, UH, FOR COUNSEL. 
          UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I GET THIS RIGHT, BUT IF WE, IF WE DO NOT ACT ON THIS PROPERTY, THE PREVIOUS ORDER STILL STANDS CORRECT. 
          INCLUDING THE WEEKLY PENALTY? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO THAT WEEKLY PENALTY WILL CONTINUE TO ACCRUE? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UM, AND, UH, NO, I THINK THAT'S IT. 
          , THAT'S IT. 
          I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR THAT IF WE TAKE NO ACTION, THESE FINES WILL CONTINUE TO ACCUMULATE IF WE ORDER, IF WE ORDER DEMOLITION, NO FURTHER FINES ACCUMULATE AFTER THIS POINT OTHER THAN THE 10%, UH, LIEN. 
          SO ACCORDING TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER, THE STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THE PENALTIES CEASE ACCRUING AND INSTEAD THE PENALTY BE CAPPED AT $18,714 AND 29 CENTS, WHICH IS THE CURRENT, WHICH IS, WHICH IS CURRENTLY WHERE IT'S AT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE CAPPED. 
          UM, AND IT WOULD NO LONGER CONTINUE. 
          THERE WOULD BE NO CONTINUAL ACCRUAL MM-HMM . 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO WITH THIS ORDER OR SOME MODIFICATION, BUT IF IT'S A DEMO ORDER, THEN THERE WOULD BE NO NEW PENALTIES AND IT WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER TO DEMOLISH. 
          NOW, THE CITY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO DEMOLISH UPON THE EXTINCTION OF THE 45 DAYS OR HOWEVER MUCH TIME YOU DO CHOOSE. 
          UM, BUT, UH, I THINK STAFF HAS REPRESENTED TONIGHT THAT IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTIME SOON. 
          MM-HMM . 
          I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT COMMISSIONERS TOO BECAUSE, UH, I DID HEAR A REQUEST OF ADDITIONAL TIME. 
          SO YOU ALL CAN GO UP TO 90 DAYS, RIGHT? MM-HMM . 
          AS LONG AS THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SECURED, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPERTY HAS AT LEAST BEEN FENCED MM-HMM . 
          UM, KEEP IN MIND THAT UNDER STATE LAW 2 14 0 0 1 SUBSECTION J AS WELL AS YOUR OWN, UH, RULES OF OF AND REGULATIONS OF PROCEDURE 5 0 2, THERE IS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED BEFORE YOU CAN GO ABOVE THAT 90 DAY THRESHOLD. 
          GOT IT. 
          UM, THAT INFORMATION DOES INCLUDE A DETAILED PLAN AND TIME, UH, TIME SCHEDULE FOR THE WORK THAT HAS TO BE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING. 
          THERE ALSO HAS TO BE, UM, EVIDENCE THAT THE WORK CANNOT BE REASONABLY COMPLETED WITHIN 90 DAYS BECAUSE OF THE SCOPE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE WORK. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UH, SO THAT'S AT, AT LEAST AT A MINIMUM IN STATE LAW. 
          AND THEN THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU ALL HAVE JUST IN YOUR, IN YOUR BASIC RULES. 
          UM, I'VE NOT SEEN ANY OF THAT EVIDENCE PRESENTED TONIGHT. 
          I DID SEE THAT THERE WAS, UH, A SCOPE OF PROPOSED WORK, BUT I DIDN'T SEE A DETAILED TIME SCHEDULE. 
          SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR THE STAFF OR JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. 
          CAN WE RECOMMEND THAT, UM, SECURITY IS PROVIDED IN, IN THIS 90 DAYS OR WHATEVER EXTENSION THAT THE, THE OWNERS OR CURRENT OWNERS, UM, HAVE SOMEBODY, A SECURITY OFFICER, UH, YOU ALL CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION OR YOU ALL CAN PUT THAT REQUEST IN THE ORDER, UM, AS ADDITIONAL SECURITY OF FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          SO YOU CAN ASK THAT THE PROPERTY BE FURTHER SECURED. 
          UM, BUT PERHAPS THAT MIGHT BE SOME QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT WANNA ASK TO SEE WHAT THE PRACTICALITY IS OF THAT AS WELL. 
          ASK THE PROPERTY. 
          YEAH. 
          WOULD Y'ALL BE WILLING TO PROVIDE SECURITY IN THE MEANTIME? YES, BECAUSE IT, YEAH, I MEAN, I, I'VE SEEN THAT DONE, YOU KNOW, YEAH. 
          WE DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE OWNER AND, AND THEY'RE WILLING TO AND HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT MIGHT INVOLVE THAT IN SOME, UH, CALLING OUT THE POLICE TO, TO ENFORCE A NO RES HAS TRESPASS ORDER. 
          UM, BUT I 
          [01:20:01]
THINK AT THE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, WE CAN COME BACK, UM, WITH A BOND OR, OR FISCAL, UM, WE DON'T HAVE THAT TODAY. 
          UM, BUT THAT WON'T BE A PROBLEM. 
          UM, IF I MAY, I KNOW I NORMALLY DON'T ASK QUESTIONS, BUT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE BEFORE I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU ALL. 
          UM, DO YOU KNOW IF THE OWNER HAS A CTN ON THE PROPERTY? UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT, UH, CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE IT. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY DO OR NOT. 
          SORRY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO PERHAPS SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU ALL MM-HMM. 
          COULD CONSIDER INCLUDING IN YOUR ORDER IS THAT THE OWNER, IF THEY DO NOT ALREADY HAVE ONE, OBTAIN WHAT'S CALLED A CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE A WAY FOR A PD TO GO OUT TO THE PROPERTY TO REMOVE ANY TRESPASSERS. 
          UM, THOSE NOTE, THOSE NOTICES ALSO KNOWN AS CTN ARE GOOD FOR ONE YEAR. 
          UM, ON THAT EXPIRATION, THE OWNER, OF COURSE WOULD HAVE TO, TO SUBMIT A NEW ONE. 
          BUT AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT THE OWNER CAN DO TO HELP FURTHER SECURE THE PROPERTY. 
          SO YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER ADDING THAT TO YOUR ORDER. 
          AND WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THAT. 
          SO UNDER 2 14 0 0 1, YOU ALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALSO SECURE A STRUCTURE. 
          SO IT INCLUDES REQUIRE THE VACATION RELOCATION OF OCCUPANTS, SECURING REMOVAL, REPAIR, OR DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING. 
          SO THIS WOULD FALL UNDER THAT SECURING OF THE BUILDING. 
          I THINK I SEE HANDS FROM STAFFS , PLEASE. 
          THERE IS A NO TRESSING ORDER ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S THE OLD OWNER AND IT EXPIRES IN TWO MORE MONTHS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I THINK AS A, JUST IN CASE, YOU MIGHT WANNA HAVE A NEW ONE ALSO, IF YOU ARE ADDING THE SECURITY ISSUE, UH, I GUESS ADDITION, UM, YOU MIGHT WANT TO ASSIGN A PENALTY AMOUNT TO THAT. 
          'CAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE PENALTIES ROLLING ON THE NON REPAIRS, RIGHT? MM-HMM. 
          MM-HMM . 
          UM, BUT IF YOU DON'T ASSIGN A PENALTY AMOUNT ON THE SECURITY, THEN THERE'S NO MOTIVATION MM-HMM . 
          MM-HMM . 
          TO DO THAT. 
          AND WE CAN'T, BUT WE CAN'T DO BOTH. 
          CAN WE DO BOTH?  WOULD STAFF BE COMFORTABLE WITH US NOT GOING FORWARD WITH THE DEMOLITION ORDER NOW, BUT EFFECTIVELY LEAVE THE EXISTING ORDER IN PLACE REPAIR ORDER, AND CONTINUE TO ASSESS FINES? AS LONG AS WE ADD PROVISION FOR SECURING THE PROPERTY AND MAINTAINING IT? I'M, UH, I MEAN WE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A GOOD AMOUNT OF PRESSURE WITH THE PENALTIES, I THINK. 
          MM-HMM . 
          IF WE ADDED SECURITY, I MEAN, I'D FEEL BETTER, OBVIOUSLY, AND THEN FENCING AND WHATNOT, UM, I'D FEEL GOOD DECENT WITH A, UM, DEMOLITION ORDER TOO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOW, WHO KNOWS HOW LONG INSURANCES TAKE. 
          I MEAN, I'VE SEEN IT TAKE YEARS, YOU KNOW, SO MM-HMM . 
          UH, WE COULD, I'M NOT, BUT WE COULD ALSO BRING IT BACK IF IT WAS LANGUISHING, YOU KNOW, AND, UH, AND TRY TO GET, YEAH, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE LETTING IT JUST LIE AND, AND STOP THE PENALTIES. 
          UM, MM-HMM . 
          GENTLEMEN, YOU, YOU NEED SOME PRESSURE TO GET THIS RESOLVED. 
          SO MY FEELING IS THAT THE ONGOING ACCRUAL OF INTEREST AGAINST THE, UH, BIG ALSO ONGOING PENALTIES I THINK IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE. 
          WHAT DOES THE REST OF THE COMMISSION THINK? SO THE, THE REPAIR ORDER CAN BE, UM, LEFT IN PLACE, CAN BE SATISFIED THROUGH DEMOLITION? YES. 
          UM, WE HAVE EXISTING PENALTIES IN PLACE AND ADDITIONAL PENALTIES ACCRUING EVERY WEEK AND INTEREST ACCRUING ON THE EXISTING PENALTIES. 
          INTEREST DOESN'T START UNTIL THE PENALTY STOP. 
          MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          BUT WE'RE GETTING NEW PENALTIES EVERY WEEK RIGHT NOW. 
          CORRECT. 
          WHAT DOES THE PROPERTY OWNER SAY THAT THIS, WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE? UM, SORRY. 
          POTENTIALLY, I MEAN, OH WAIT, IT'S HARD TO, I'M SORRY. 
          WE'VE ALSO GOT A COMMISSIONER ASKING A QUESTION. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          LET, LET, LET AHEAD HIM. 
          CAN GO FIRST. 
          I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT SECURITY, AND WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A GUARANTEE THERE'D BE SOMEONE THERE 24 7? I I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          LIKE, IS IT SOMEONE WHO'S JUST THERE AT NIGHT? UM, MULTIPLE PEOPLE. 
          IF YOU COULD JUST PROVIDE A BIT MORE DETAIL ON WHAT YOU'RE WILLING TO PROVIDE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          I, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION TODAY. 
          I MEAN, THAT, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO, WE'D BE HAPPY TO COME BACK WITH A, A CONTRACT AND DETAILS ABOUT THAT, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'D BE 24 7 OR, OR PATROLS. 
          I MEAN, 24 7, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES, MULTIPLE OF THEM. 
          [01:25:01]
SO, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT, UM, THE, THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS PROBLEM, WHEN YOU HAVE TWO FIRES IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BUILDING, UM, THE COMPLEXITY AND SCOPE OF THE ISSUE IS JUST SO GREAT THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE AND, AND NOT REASONABLE TO COMPLY WITH, UM, EITHER THE ORIGINAL OR A REPLACEMENT ORDER AT THIS TIME. 
          UM, IT'S NOT EVEN BEEN TWO MONTHS SINCE THE SECOND FIRE MM-HMM . 
          UM, WE WANT TO GET IT RESOLVED, UM, BUT IT IS JUST NOT REASONABLE TO DO THAT WITHIN 45 DAYS OR MM-HMM . 
          POTENTIALLY 90 DAYS. 
          UM, AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT TONIGHT, WHETHER IT'S 90 DAYS OR LESS, WHETHER, UM, AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN JUST GOING THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION, UM, OR FOR THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, UH, IF YOU'RE DOING COMPREHENSIVE SITE PLAN, UM, THAT CAN'T BE DONE WITHIN 45 DAYS. 
          UM, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          I I JUST WANNA GET SOME CLARIFICATION, UH, FROM CITY STAFF, I HEARD THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS WORKING PROACTIVELY ON THE PREVIOUS ORDER, IS THAT CORRECT? IT WAS SLOW GOING, BUT YES. 
          AND, UM, LOOKING BACK THROUGH THE PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS BEFORE THIS NEW FIRE, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER POST THIS NEW FIRE TO MAKE THOSE REPAIRS ADDRESSED THROUGH THAT PREVIOUS ORDER AS FAR AS TO THE OLD PART OF THE REPAIR THAT WAS BEING DONE, RIGHT. 
          OR HAVE THOSE PREVIOUS VIOLATIONS NOW ESSENTIALLY BEEN BURNT DOWN? ? NO, THEY'RE STILL THERE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE INTERIOR OF IT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          BUT THE EXTERIOR LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME ON THAT ONE PART OF THE BUILDING. 
          MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SURE. 
          I THINK, WHAT ABOUT MIKE? UM, I THINK, DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THESE FOLKS OR SHOULD WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? IS THAT APPROPRIATE NOW? DOES SOMEBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THESE GUYS? GO AHEAD. 
          I DID HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF HOW MANY SQUATTERS ARE GENERALLY THERE? AND I KNOW THAT CAN FLUCTUATE A LOT, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE ARE MORE SPECIFIC NUMBERS. 
          I'VE SEEN TWO THAT I, WHEN I GO OVER THERE, TWO NORMAL ONES, BUT, UM, AS MOST HOMEOWNERS KNOW, UH, TRANSIENTS AND HOMELESS ARE USUALLY MORE ACTIVE AT NIGHT. 
          SO THEY'RE GONNA SEE 'EM WHEN A LOT OF THE CITY WORKERS HAVE GONE FOR THE DAY. 
          UM, I'VE, I'VE SEEN TWO USUALLY WHEN I GET THERE AND IT'S A COUPLE AND THEY'RE WALKING KIND OF AROUND THE COMPLEX. 
          THANK YOU. 
          QUESTION MAY BE BETTER POINTED TOWARD, UH, THE ADJACENT RESIDENCE. 
          HOW MANY, I THINK WE COULD ANSWER THAT TOO. 
          I'VE SEEN AS MANY AS LIKE 14 OR 15 AT ONE POINT. 
          I KNOW EVERY WEEK IT'S NEW FACES TOO. 
          UM, THERE WAS ONE INSTANCE WHERE THE POLICE DID SHOW UP AND THEY ASKED THE, THE PEOPLE TO LEAVE AND THEY DIDN'T. 
          SO HE PULLED AROUND WITH HIS SUV AND FILLED UP HIS SUV AND TOOK THEM OUT OF THE PROPERTY. 
          UM, AND EVEN WITH THAT, THERE WERE STILL MORE PEOPLE THERE THAT HE COULDN'T FIT EVERYONE IN THAT SUV. 
          IT'S LIKE A SCENE FROM THE WALKING DEAD OVER THERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR PROPERTY OWNER FOR THESE OTHER NICE FOLKS THAT CAME IN AND SPENT TIME WITH US TONIGHT? THEN I'M GONNA ASK FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          SECOND. 
          SECOND. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UH, I DON'T KNOW THAT I NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          DO I NEED TO DO ROLL CALL? NOT, NOT FOR THIS MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          VERY GOOD. 
          SO WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          NOW WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WANNA DO. 
          SOMEBODY HAS TO MAKE A MOTION FIRST, OR, OR IS IT JUST REASONABLE TO SAY WE'RE NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING NOW AND THE EXISTING MOTION STAYS IN PLACE REGARDLESS? SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          RIGHT? EVEN IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S, BUT I'M JUST KIND OF YEAH. 
          DOES THAT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYBODY? WELL, CAN WE ADD, UM, SORRY, GO AHEAD. 
          TURN THE MIC ON IF YOU WOULD. 
          I THINK BEFORE WE DISCUSS THOUGH, WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION BEFORE WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION, RIGHT? WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE SO THAT WE TALK ABOUT IT THIS WAY. 
          YOU, THIS WAY YOU CAN DISCUSS THAT MOTION. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU WANNA MAKE A MOTION? NO, ABSOLUTELY. 
          SHE DOESN'T WANT TO. 
          SOMEBODY ELSE WANNA MAKE A MOTION? WELL, I WANNA, UM, I DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE, BUT I WANNA, UM, MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDED, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED. 
          OKAY. 
          TO DO WHAT? UH, I'M NOT TOO SURE HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT IT, 
          [01:30:01]
BUT I, I THINK THAT, UM, IF WE ADD THAT THE, UM, OWNER CAN PROVIDE SECURITY, THEN MAYBE THE, THE, THE FINES STOP THAT WOULD SHOW THAT YOU'RE BEING PROACTIVE FOR THE, FOR THE COMMUNITY. 
          IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE SECURITY, THEN THE FINES CONTINUE TO ACCU TO OCCUR. 
          UH, COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. 
          YEAH, BUT I CAN HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION ON YOUR, YOUR ORDER. 
          SO IS IT, I MEAN, YOUR, I'M SORRY, YOUR MOTION IS YOUR MOTION TO ONE ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND THEN TWO, TO ADOPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU'VE PROPOSED, WHICH IS THAT THE OWNER PROVIDES SECURITY. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          AND JUST TO MAKE SURE, THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IS TO HAVE THE PROPERTY DEMOLISHED WITHIN 45 DAYS, AND THEN ON THE 46TH DAY, IF IT'S NOT DEMOLISHED, THEN THE CITY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO COMPLETE THE DEMOLITION. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO JUST, JUST MAKING SURE. 
          SO AGAIN, JUST TO REPEAT FOR THE RECORD, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE MADE BY, UH, COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ IS TO ADOPT STAFF'S FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND AS WELL AS STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT THAT THE OWNER PROVIDE SECURITY. 
          AND THAT SECURITY WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF, UM, UH, ONSITE SECURITY, ONSITE PERSONNEL. 
          AND YEAH, IT COULD BE MAYBE JUST AT NIGHT SINCE THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE MO MORE ACTIVE. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND WHEN YOU SAY AT NIGHT, DO YOU WANNA PUT A TIMEFRAME? SO THIS WAY THE OWNER IS CLEAR FROM THIS TIME TO THIS TIME, I NEED TO MAKE SURE I HAVE SECURITY ON PROPERTY. 
          UM, YEAH, I WOULD SAY, UM, 6:00 PM TO 6:00 AM OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND OH, I, I, I'LL WAIT TILL OKAY. 
          AND IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? SORRY, COMMISSIONER. 
          SORRY, CHAIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND. 
          NO, GO ON. 
          THAT'S FINE. 
          IS THERE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION HEARING? NO, SECOND. 
          I THINK WE, THAT MOTION FAILS, CORRECT? CORRECT. 
          SO THERE HAS TO BE A SECOND IN ORDER FOR YOU ALL TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS IN VOTE. 
          SO WE, I, I SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR MAINTAINING OR USING, FOLLOWING THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AMENDED TO INCLUDE ONSITE SECURITY FROM 6:00 PM TO 6:00 AM MM-HMM . 
          AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DO NOT, IF THEY DO NOT, UM, PROVIDE, PROVIDE, PROVIDE, PROVIDE SECURITY, PROVIDE SECURITY, THEN THEIR, UM, FINES CONTINUE WEEKLY. 
          SO, BECAUSE, BECAUSE AS IT IS, THE MOTION IS TO STOP THE FINES, RIGHT? IT'S TO DEMOLISH. 
          IT'S TO DEMOLISH. 
          SO RIGHT NOW WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IT WOULD BE TO DEMOLISH. 
          SO THEY WOULD ALSO CAP THE PENALTY. 
          SO NO PENALTIES WOULD CONTINUE. 
          IF I'M HEARING CORRECTLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO YOUR CURRENT MOTION, WHICH WOULD BE TO ADD A, SOME INCENTIVE FOR THE SECURITY. 
          OR AM I MISUNDERSTANDING? CAN I, CAN I MIX AND MATCH DEMOLITION AND NEW PENALTIES? SO IS IT, IS IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROVIDING AN INCENTIVE TO GET THE SECURITY? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHAT YOU CAN DO IS YOU CAN ADD A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO SAY THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE ONSITE SECURITY WITHIN X NUMBER OF DAYS. 
          AND IF SAID, SECURITY IS NOT PROVIDED BY THE, UH, 16TH DAY, SORRY, THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE MM-HMM . 
          THEN PENALTY OF X WILL BEGIN TO ACCRUE UNTIL THE SECURITY IS PROVIDED. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I MOVE TO AMEND THE MOTION, UM, TO ADD THAT ON THE 15TH DAY, IF SECURITY HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVIDED FROM 6:00 PM TO 6:00 AM PENALTY OF $500 A WEEK, WILL ACCRUE WILL BEGIN TO ACCRUE. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          . 
          OKAY. 
          AND I'M JUST A SLIGHT TWEAK. 
          MM-HMM. 
          MAY WE ADD ON THE, 
          [01:35:01]
SO THEY HAVE 15 DAYS TO PROVIDE THE SECURITY, UM, OR TO PROVIDE ONSITE SECURITY FROM 6:00 PM TO 8:00 AM 14 DAYS ON THE 15TH DAY. 
          OH, 14 DAYS. 
          I'M SORRY, YOU SAID 15TH. 
          OKAY. 
          THE 15TH DAY PENALTY ACCRUE 14TH. 
          AND THEN ON THE 15TH DAY FROM THE DATE THE ORDER IS MAILED, THIS WAY THERE'S SOME CLARITY. 
          MM-HMM . 
          THEN THE PENALTY OF 500 WILL BEGIN PER WEEK WILL BE TO ACCRUE. 
          OKAY. 
          I CAN'T GET SECURITY. 
          I THINK YOU, UH, WE HAVE TO, BEFORE WE CAN DISCUSS THAT, WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO GO IN AND FOLLOW THIS THROUGH. 
          YES. 
          SO THAT'S THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. 
          UHHUH ON THE TABLE. 
          I WITHDRAW THE AMENDMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE, THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION. 
          CHAIR REAL QUICK, SORRY. 
          YOU MAY WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU ACTUALLY WANT FOR SECURITY. 
          'CAUSE A LOT OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE JUST PUTTING UP LIKE A TRAILER THAT SAYS BEWARE. 
          DON'T COME NEAR THIS. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          JUST FOR CLARITY ON SECURITY. 
          YES, THANK YOU. 
          I I BELIEVE THE MOTION INCLUDED ONSITE PERSONNEL FROM 6:00 PM TO 6:00 AM I I BELIEVE IT DID. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND THAT WAS THE INTENT. 
          BUT YOU WITHDRAW YOUR AMENDMENT FOR THE MOMENT. 
          LET'S FINISH A DISCUSSION THEN. 
          MM-HMM . 
          TALK ABOUT IT. 
          'CAUSE I THINK, I THINK, UH, TRULY ONSITE SECURITY IS GONNA COST A THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY. 
          POTENTIALLY. 
          YOU, YOU CAN GET A GUY OUT THERE FOR 25 BUCKS AN HOUR AND IT'S THERE FOR 12 HOURS. 
          SO, UM, I THINK MY CONCERN IS THAT THE MORE WE CARVE OUT A SPECIFIC, UH MM-HMM  ORDER AND, AND PENALTY FOR THIS CASE, UM, THE MORE DIFFICULT IT BECOMES TO ENFORCE, UH, YEAH. 
          WE'RE PUTTING A LOT ON STAFF MM-HMM . 
          ASKING THEM TO GO OUT AND CHECK AND MAKE SURE THE SECURITY'S IN PLACE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. 
          THAT'S NOT PRACTICAL. 
          MM-HMM . 
          I DON'T THINK SO. 
          UM, IS THERE A REASON WE'RE NOT JUST MOVING FORWARD WITH NO ACTION AND ALLOWING THE THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK, WE CAN JUST, WE CAN JUST CONTINUE THIS. 
          I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH TO, YOU KNOW, 90 DAYS. 
          IF THAT'S HOW LONG IT TAKES THEM TO, TO MOVE FORWARD, THEN THAT'S AN EXTRA A THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK THAT WE'RE ACCRUING TO. 
          WHAT WOULD STAFF THINK ABOUT COMING BACK IN 60 DAYS AND DOING THIS AGAIN TO SEE WHERE THEY ARE? OR DO YOU, OR DOES THE OWNER NEED 90 TO FIGURE IT OUT? I, I'M STILL A LITTLE CONCERNED FOR THE COMMUNITY. 
          I AM TOO. 
          AND, UH, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF THERE WAS A, A SIMPLE MEANS OF AMENDING THE CURRENT ORDER TO SAY MAYBE WE CAN GIVE YOU SOME RELIEF IF WE HAVE A HIGH LEVEL OF SECURITY IN PLACE THAT THE COMMUNITY'S COMFORTABLE WITH IT. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO REGULATE THAT OR HOW TO ENFORCE IT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          I THINK WHAT YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, SINCE SHE HAD MENTIONED THAT IT IS ACCRUING WHEN IT IS TIME TO COME TO THE TABLE FOR PENALTY FORGIVENESS, YOU KNOW, DID Y'ALL PROVIDE SECURITY? AND IF NOT, THEN MM-HMM . 
          THAT'S GREAT. 
          ACTUALLY COULD GO THAT ROUND. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT'S GREAT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          SO MAYBE THE SIMPLE, MAYBE THE SIMPLE MOTION IS LET'S JUST CONTINUE THIS FOR 90 DAYS, CONTINUE AND PROVIDE AN UPDATED CRIMINAL TRESPASSING NOTICE. 
          IF WE REQUIRE NEW THINGS, THEN WE HAVE TO, IT'S A NEW ORDER. 
          FIGURE OUT NEW PENALTIES, NEW ORDER RECOMMENDATION. 
          MM-HMM . 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          RIGHT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          SO TO, UH, MR. MOORE'S POINT, YOU ALL COULD MAKE A MODIFICATION OF THE CURRENT ORDER TO BASICALLY SAY PROVIDE A, A C, AN UPDATED CTN OR AN UPDATED CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE. 
          UM, SO THAT IS A POSSIBILITY AS WELL. 
          AND IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE REPAIR, IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE, UM, CURRENT PENALTY AND THE ACCUMULATION OF THAT PENALTY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          AND ALSO TO PROVIDE SECURITY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          I MEAN, YOU COULD PUT SECURITY AND WE COULD JUST JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT PUT A PENALTY AMOUNT, BUT AT LEAST IT'S ON RECORD, IT'S IN THE ORDER. 
          MM-HMM. 
          WE'LL JUST TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, SO SURE. 
          WHEN THEY, WHEN WHEN THEY COME BACK ASKING FOR PENALTY RELIEF, WHICH I'M SURE YOU WILL ON BEHALF YOUR CLIENT MM-HMM . 
          WE CAN, THAT CAN BE A PART OF OUR DISCUSSION. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWN HAVE SOME QUESTION. 
          YES, SIR. 
          I AM JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE DOWNSIDE OF DOING THE ORDER REQUIRING SECURITY IS. 
          I GET THE ISSUES WITH ENFORCEMENT AND THAT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SEND SOMEONE TO GO CHECK, BUT I GUESS I FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE A BIT MORE BITE AND LIKE MORE TEETH THAT, LIKE THEY HAVE THIS ORDER, THEY'RE GONNA BE AN ACCRUING MORE FINES IF THEY DON'T PROVIDE IT. 
          SO I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THERE'S A DOWNSIDE TO DOING THAT THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          I, I DON'T THINK THERE IS. 
          IF WE, IF WE FOLLOW THE THOUGHT PROCESS THAT THEY'RE GONNA WANT TO COME BACK LATER AND ASK FOR REDUCTION IN PENALTY, WHICH IS GONNA CONTINUE TO OCCUR FOR 
          [01:40:01]
A WHILE, IF WE ASK THEM TO PROVIDE SECURITY ON SITE WHEN THEY DO COME BACK, AND IF THEY CAN SHOW PROOF THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED SECURITY, WE'RE GONNA BE NICER. 
          UH, YEAH. 
          I THINK THAT COULD BE PERSUASIVE. 
          I'M JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE, THEY DON'T HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO NOT PROVIDE SECURITY BECAUSE OKAY. 
          IF THE PENALTIES LIKE, YOU KNOW, 10 GRAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT'S MAYBE CHEAPER FOR THEM TO NOT EVEN REQUEST RELIEF AT ALL. 
          THE, THE CURRENT PENALTY'S A THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK IN WHAT WE SAID SECURITY PROBABLY COST A THOUSAND DOLLARS. 
          SECURITY'S GONNA COST MORE THAN A THOUSAND A WEEK. 
          YEAH. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE WE MIGHT NEED TO WITHDRAW THE CURRENT MOTION TO MAKE A NEW MOTION OF SOME KIND. 
          WHAT ARE WE UP TO RIGHT NOW? ? DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW? SO THE MOTION IS TO, UH, IS THE STAFF DEMO ORDER WITH A REQUIREMENT WITH NO ADDITIONAL PENALTY FOR, UM, HAVING PERSONNEL ON SITE TO SECURE THE PROPERTY FROM 6:00 PM TO 6:00 AM RIGHT. 
          AND YOU STARTED THE PROCESS OF AMENDING THAT. 
          THAT WAS, AND I WITHDREW MY AMENDMENT. 
          SO, SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. 
          SO WE HAVE AN EXISTING MOTION AND SECOND ON THE TABLE THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON, CORRECT? YES. 
          OR WITHDRAWN. 
          WE CAN, OR IT CAN BE WITHDRAWN. 
          SO THERE'S BY THE MAKER, TWO OPTIONS. 
          RIGHT. 
          BY THE MAKER WHO MADE IT, I THINK WHO MADE IT. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE TO WITHDRAW? AND THAT WAS COMMISSIONER MARK WOULD LIKE MAKE, WITHDRAW MY MOTION. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THE MOTION IS WITHDRAWN FROM THE TABLE SO WE HAVE NO MOTION. 
          UH, AND WE CAN START FRESH WITH A NEW MOTION THAT COULD REQUIRE SECURITY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
           OR I, I SIMPLY TAKE, TAKE THE EXISTING MOTION, EXISTING ORDER THAT'S IN PLACE. 
          WELL, WE'D HAVE TO STILL MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT. 
          RIGHT? SO, UM, I'M GONNA GIVE IT A SHOT. 
          , UM, I MOVE THAT WE, UH, ADOPT STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, UM, AND MOVE TO ORDER THE FOLLOWING IN LIEU OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER THAT WE UPHOLD THE PREVIOUS ORDER OF THIS COMMISSION AND ADD A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, GET A NEW CTN CRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE AND SECURE THE PROPERTY WITH ONSITE PERSONNEL FROM 6:00 PM TO 6:00 AM I THINK THAT'S ENT. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? I THINK WE GET TO VOTE. 
          UH, ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          UH, SORRY. 
          CHAIR. 
          ONE SECOND. 
          AND APOLOGIES. 
          COMMISSIONER IBARRA. 
          I WANNA MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR. 
          SO YOU ARE ADDING A RECOMMENDATION OR YOU'RE ADDING A CONDITION, ADDING A RECOMMENDATION. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWN, CAN I ABSTAIN? NO, SURE. 
          I ABSTAIN. 
          I MEAN THAT IS, THAT IS TECHNICALLY AN OPTION. 
          UM, WE COULD DISCUSS IT. 
          YOU WANNA DISCUSS IT OR? YEAH, BUT I, I WILL, I DON'T WANT TO SWAY YOUR DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT, UM, IT DOES REQUIRE ALL SIX MEMBERS TO VOTE IN A, YOU KNOW, TO AFFIRM THE MOTION. 
          SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. 
          OH, THAT'S RIGHT. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I JUST ASK ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION? CAN YOU JUST, UM, PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON, ON WHY WE'RE VOTING FOR THE RECOMMENDATION AND NOT THE PENALTY? I'M, I'M NOT STRONGLY MIC TURN YOUR MIC ON. 
          CAN YOU TURN YOUR MIC ON AND RESTATE YOUR QUESTION? COULD YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON WHY YOU MOVED FOR RECOMMENDATION AND NOT A PENALTY? I'M NOT STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THAT, BUT I JUST AM CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR LOGIC BEHIND THAT. 
          YES. 
          UM, THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAS SHOWN A WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE WITH CITY STAFF AND THE ORDER OF THIS COMMISSION. 
          I, UM, I DO NOT WANT TO DISCOUNT THAT OVERLY. 
          UM, I DO THINK THAT, UH, CONTINUING PENALTIES ACCRUING IS IN THE INTEREST OF RESOLVING THIS ISSUE. 
          UM, I DO NOT THINK THAT, UH, INCREASING THE 
          [01:45:01]
PENALTY IS GOING TO RESULT IN FASTER COMPLIANCE IN THIS CASE. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS ONE OF THE HIGHER PENALTIES THIS COMMISSION HAS ASSESSED. 
          UM, WE, THE CITY DOES NOT, UH, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PENALIZE THE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          THERE IS OBVIOUSLY A BALANCE WE'RE TRYING TO STRIKE WHERE WE WANT COMPLIANCE TO BE CHEAPER THAN THE COST OF THE PENALTIES. 
          UM, AT THE SAME TIME, UH, I THINK ADDING ADDITIONAL PENALTIES AT, AT THIS POINT WOULD COMPLICATE THE SITUATION FOR CITY STAFF. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR EXPLANATION. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          AYE. 
          THERE WE GO. 
          COMMISSIONER GARZA. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GILKER. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER IBARRA AYE. 
          AND CHAIR VOTES? AYE. 
          IT IS UNANIMOUS. 
          THAT IS OUR MOTION OR AGREED TO. 
          UM, AND THAT WILL BE MAILED TO YOU SHORTLY. 
          DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR US? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR COMING. 
          WOW. 
          IT WAS PAINFUL. 
          THIS IS THE MOST COMPLICATED. 
          OKAY. 
          YOUR, YOUR, YOUR CHAIRSHIP IS COMING IN THE MOST COMPLICATED MEETING WE'VE HAD IN A WHILE. 
          THREE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          COUNSEL CHAIR. 
          CAN I READ THE CASE THAT WE PULLED INTO THE, UH, INTO THE RECORD? I'M SORRY. 
          CAN I READ THE CASE THAT WE PULLED INTO THE RECORD? YES, PLEASE DO. 
          PLEASE MOVE THE MIC A LITTLE BIT CLOSER SO WE HAVE OKAY. 
          UH, THANK YOU. 
          AND, AND ACTUALLY CHAIR, WE NEED TO PAUSE 'CAUSE WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A QUORUM RIGHT NOW. 
          WE HAVE A MEMBER THAT'S OFF THE DAIS. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          WELL, WE ARE GONNA PAUSE. 
          LET'S TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. 
          TIME IS 8 23 AND WE ARE BACK AND I THINK READY FOR OUR NEXT CASE. 
          JAMES, IF YOU WOULD READ 
          [3. Case Number: CL 2026-013716 ]
INTO THE RECORD THE CASE THAT'S BEEN PULLED. 
          YES, SIR. 
          ITEM NUMBER THREE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER 2 0 2 5 DASH 8 2 1 0 6 REGARDING A COMMERCIAL MOTEL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 6 0 7 SOUTH INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35 SERVICE ROAD NORTHBOUND. 
          IT IS LOCALLY KNOWN AS PARK WEST INN. 
          THIS CASE HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA TO BE RESET AT A LATER DATE AND WILL NOT BE HEARD TONIGHT. 
          VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. 
          WELL THEN THE NEXT CASE 
          [4. Case Number: CL 2025-137508 ]
IS 1505 MEINS MEADOW BOULEVARD. 
          IS THERE A PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVE? NO. 
          NO. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THE STAFF WOULD MOVE AHEAD WITH YOUR PRESENTATION PLEASE. 
          ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 2 0 2 5 DASH 1 3 7 5 0 8 AND IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1 5 0 5 MES MEADOW BOULEVARD. 
          THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE GRAY BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. 
          HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE. 
          THIS CASE IS REGARDING A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. 
          THE CASE WAS OPENED IN AUGUST, 2025 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT. 
          THERE ARE NO ACTIVE BUILDING PERMITS FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          THE STRUCTURE IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS WHICH REQUIRE REPAIR. 
          IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINANT CASE HISTORY. 
          A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRED NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTINGS, A POLICE INCIDENT REPORT. 
          AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO F IN THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE. 
          INVESTIGATOR COURTNEY BRITT IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED. 
          INVESTIGATOR BRITT, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS COURTNEY BRITT AND I'M A CODE INVESTIGATOR FOR AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CODE COMPLIANCE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 1505 MES MEADOW BOULEVARD. 
          THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS TRUE NO PER THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON AUGUST 19TH, 2025. 
          WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT FOR THIS PROPERTY VIA 3 1 1 FOR AN ABANDONED HOUSE WITH AN UNMAINTAINED YARD AND BROKEN FENCE. 
          INSPECTOR INSPECTOR CHRISTOPHER MCFARLAND CONDUCTED AN INITIAL INSPECTION AND ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE OWNER AT THAT TIME, JOHN BLOY FOR A VIOLATION OF CODE SECTION TEN FIVE TWENTY ONE UNSANITARY CONDITIONS FOR THE OVERGROWN VEGETATION ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2025. 
          CODE COMPLIANCE OBTAINED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM COMPLAINANTS THAT THE RESIDENTS HAD BEEN SUBJECTED TO NUMEROUS BREAK-INS AND OCCUPATIONS BY PER 
          [01:50:01]
PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS DESPITE THE LACK OF POWER OR WATER. 
          RESEARCH IN THE AUSTIN POLICE DATABASE CONFIRMED THESE REPORTS SHOWING THAT AT THAT TIME, EIGHT CALLS FOR WELFARE CHECK, BURGLARY, BURGLARY, AND CRIMINAL TRESPASS IN THE PROCEEDING. 
          12 MONTHS WITH ONE BURGLARY ARREST ON THE APRIL 6TH, 2025 ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2025, CODE COMPLIANCE AND AUSTIN POLICE EXECUTED AN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SEARCH WARRANT, ABATED THE TALL GRASS AND WEEDS AND INSTALLED EMERGENCY BOARDING TO SECURE THE PROPERTY. 
          AS A RESULT OF THAT WARRANT, I ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION THIS TIME WITH 14 STRUCTURAL VIOLATIONS. 
          ON OCTOBER 22ND, 2025. 
          COMPLAINANTS REPORTED THAT THE BOARDING WAS REMOVED FROM THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          THE CITY COMPLETED A SECOND EMERGENCY BOARD AND SECURE OF THE PREMISES. 
          AT THIS POINT, CODE COMPLIANCE HAD ISSUED THREE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS TO THE OWNER, ALL OF WHICH HAD A FINDING OF LIABLE WITH NO OWNER RESPONSE. 
          ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2025, MR. TRU KNEW PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. 
          HE CONTACTED THE DEPARTMENT ON NOVEMBER 20TH. 
          ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 2ND, I SPOKE TO MR. NEW. 
          I OUTLINED THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ESCALATION PROCESS, THE WORK REQUIRED TO CLEAR THE VIOLATIONS AND REQUESTED HIS PROJECTED TIMELINE FOR REPAIRS. 
          I ALSO REISSUED THE NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO HIM ON JANUARY 5TH, 2026. 
          AGAIN, THE BOARDS WERE REMOVED FROM THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE. 
          I CONTACTED MR. NEW AND REQUESTED HE RE-SECURE THE RESIDENCE WITHIN 48 HOURS, WHICH HE ACCOMPLISHED ON JANUARY 30TH. 
          I OBSERVED THAT THE EXTERIOR HVAC CONDENSER UNIT WAS GONE, A COMMON TARGET OF THREAT OF THEFT FROM HOUSES THAT APPEAR ABANDONED. 
          TO DATE. 
          THERE ARE NO PERMIT APPLICATIONS IN THE SYSTEM. 
          WE'VE RECEIVED NO TIMELINE FROM MR. NEW AND OBSERVED NO EVIDENCE OF REPAIRS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE PREMISES. 
          I WOULD ALSO NOTE THIS RESIDENCE IS IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET FROM CATHERINE A. COOK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. 
          I'LL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE 10 VIOLATIONS DEPICTED. 
          PHOTO TWO A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE PREMISES. 
          UH, THIS COVERS VIOLATIONS FOR VACANT STRUCTURES AND LAND. 
          UH, SECTION 3 0 1 0.3 STRUCTURE UNSAFE FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. 
          ONE 11.1 0.3, UH, DOORS 3 0 4 POINT 15, AND WINDOWS 3 0 4 POINT 18.2. 
          NEXT PHOTO, PHOTO TWO B DEPICTS THE STREET ADDRESS AS WELL AS THE PEELING PAINT ON THE FASCIA. 
          THIS IS A VIOLATION OF PROTECTIVE TREATMENT, 3 0 4 0.2. 
          NEXT PHOTO 3 0 2 IS A CLOSEUP OF THE BROKEN SKYLIGHTS, ALLOWING WATER INGRESS INTO THE STRUCTURE WINDOW, SKYLIGHT AND DOOR FRAMES. 
          GLAZING 3 0 4 0.1 3.1. 
          PHOTO 2D SHOWS ROTTED AND DEGRADED WOOD POST AND ROTTED FILL OR TRIM SECTIONS IN THE GARAGE. 
          THIS IS, UH, WOOD 3 0 6 0.1, 0.1 0.6. 
          AND EXTERIOR WALLS 3 0 4 0.6. 
          PHOTO PHOTO TWO E DEPICTS THE REAR OF THE RESIDENCE WITH A MISSING CHIMNEY OR FIREPLACE. 
          EXTERIOR CLEAN OUT COVER AT THE BASE OF THE CHIMNEY. 
          ITS MECHANICAL APPLIANCES FOR FIREPLACE, 6 0 3 0.1. 
          NEXT PHOTO. 
          PHOTO TWO F DEPICTS A SEVERELY DAMAGED FENCE AT THE REAR OF THE PREMISES. 
          UH, PLEASE NOTE COMPLAINANT REPORTED THAT THE PERSON'S EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS ACCESS THE PROPERTY THROUGH THIS REAR FENCE, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY DAMAGED BY A FALLEN TREE. 
          THIS FENCE ABUTS A UH, STREAM AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT AT LITTLE WALNUT CREEK. 
          UH, THIS IS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES 3 0 2 0.7. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY. 
          I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT. 
          THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. 
          STAFF ASK 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. 
          F. 
          STAFF ALSO REQUESTED THE COMMISSION ADOPT THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS 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 REQUESTS INSPECTIONS 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 REPAIRS REQUIRED BY THIS ORDER ARE COMPLETE INTEREST SHALL ACCRUE A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL WITHOUT THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU STAFF. 
          AND WE HAVE NO ONE HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY. 
          AH, YES. 
          I'LL, I'LL, UH, ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO F AND NOW I THINK I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF FIRST. 
          AH, GO AHEAD. 
          UM, IS THIS A HOMESTEAD PROPERTY? IT 
          [01:55:01]
IS NOT, NO. 
          IT WAS BEFORE MR. NEW PURCHASED IT. 
          UH, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM HIM IS HE INTENDS TO REPAIR IT FOR EITHER LEASE OR SALE. 
          I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHICH, BUT THE INFORMATION I HAVE IS THAT HE DOES NOT INTEND TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MISSION, A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          NEED A SECOND? SECOND. 
          MOTION IS MADE AND SECONDED. 
          CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? SO IT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION I MOVE TO ADOPT THE STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY. 
          SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADAPT CITY STAFF RECOMMENDATION. 
          AND A SECOND, ARE WE READY FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE OR ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSIONS THAT WE WANT TO HAVE BEFORE? I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, UH, RELATED TO THE FACT THAT IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, I'M A BIT CONCERNED BY THAT AND JUST THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS MOVING FAST ON REPAIRS. 
          UM, SO I'M, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO TO MOVING FORWARD, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS OF Y'ALL'S THOUGHTS AND HOW Y'ALL ARE THINKING ABOUT THAT. 
          I I GENERALLY AGREE WITH YOU, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S A SCHOOL NEARBY AND STAFF HAS ALWAYS BEEN REALLY GOOD ABOUT LETTING US KNOW HOW CLOSE THE NEAREST SCHOOL IS, ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE HOMELESS ISSUES IN THE AREA OR IN ON THE PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR. 
          UH, THIS ONE BEING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, OF COURSE THE BIGGER ISSUE, BUT IT, IT ALSO APPEARS THAT THE, THE BOARD AND SECURE WORK THAT THE CITY HAS DONE IS APPEARS PRETTY EFFECTIVE. 
          CAN YOU FOLKS TELL US IT DOES. 
          I'VE DONE, UM, FOLLOW UPS ON THIS MORE FREQUENTLY THAN REQUIRED BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS. 
          UM, THERE WERE TWO TIMES THE BOARDS WERE REMOVED. 
          UM, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE TIMES WAS, UH, HOMELESS, UH, GETTING BACK INTO THE STRUCTURE PERHAPS TO RETRIEVE BELONGINGS THEY HAD LEFT. 
          UM, THIS IS SPECULATION. 
          UM, THE OTHER TIME COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN A, UH, WORK CREW BY THE OWNER OR CONTRACTORS GIVING ESTIMATES THAT LEFT THE DOOR OFF. 
          I DON'T HAVE CLARIFICATION ON THAT. 
          UM, BUT IN THE PROCEEDING FEW MONTHS, I'VE NOT SEEN ANY EVIDENCE OF HOMELESS REOCCUPATION OF THE HOUSE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UM, COMMISSIONER, THE THINGS THAT WE COULD DO, I THINK, UM, THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT WOULD BE, UM, INCREASING THE PENALTY, UM, CHANGING THE TIMEFRAME, BUT WITHIN, AND BOTH OF THOSE ARE WITHIN LIMITS. 
          UM, WE CAN ALSO ADD, AS WE DID PREVIOUSLY, UM, A SECURE ORDER, UM, TO, UH, TO THE CITY'S ORDER OR RECOMMENDED ORDER. 
          CORRECT. 
          UH, COUNSEL. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GARZA. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GILKER. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER IBA AYE AND I CHAIR VOTES. 
          AYE. 
          SO IT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON TO 
          [5. Case Number: CL 2026-022122 ]
THE NEXT CASE. 
          WE CALL CASE FOUR TWENTY ONE TWELVE EAST CAESAR CHAVEZ. 
          ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER CL 2 0 2 6 DASH 0 2 2 1 22 AND IS REGARDING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2 1 1 2 EAST CAESAR CHAVEZ STREET. 
          THE EXHIBITS CAN BE FOUND IN THE BEIGE BOOKS IN YOUR READERS AND GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER. 
          HERE ARE SOME FACTS ABOUT THE CASE. 
          THIS CASE IS ABOUT A FIRE DAMAGE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE THAT IS UNOCCUPIED. 
          THE CASE WAS OPENED IN OCTOBER OF 2025 AS A RESULT OF A COMPLAINT. 
          THERE ARE NO ACTIVE PERMITS FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          THE STRUCTURE IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE REPAIR. 
          IN YOUR GOOGLE DRIVE FOLDER OR READER, YOU'LL FIND THE FOLLOWING EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH CONTAINS THE COMPLAINT CASE HISTORY. 
          A COPY OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT RECORD THAT VERIFIES OWNERSHIP MAPS OF THE PROPERTY, ALL REQUIRE NOTICES, PROOFS OF MAILING AND POSTING. 
          AND EXHIBIT TWO, WHICH CONSISTS OF PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO E IN THE RECOMMENDED ORDER CODE. 
          INSPECTOR SHEILA DOYLE IS CURRENTLY ASSIGNED TO THIS CASE AND IS HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS AS DEPICTED. 
          INSPECTOR DOYLE, PLEASE BEGIN YOUR TESTIMONY. 
          GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 
          MY NAME IS SHEILA DOYLE AND I AM AN INSPECTOR 
          [02:00:01]
FOR THE AUSTIN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CODE COMPLIANCE. 
          THE PROPERTY BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2112 EAST CESAR CHAVEZ, AUSTIN, TEXAS 7 8 7 0 2. 
          THE OWNER OF RECORD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS POLYGAMY HOTEL LLC ON OCTOBER THE SIXTH, 2025. 
          AUSTIN CODE COMPLIANCE RECEIVE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2112 ECR CHAVEZ VIA 3 1 1. 
          ON OCTOBER THE SEVENTH, 2025, I PERFORMED AN INSPECTION AND OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING VIOLATIONS. 
          THE STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED FROM UTILITY SERVICES IS ABANDONED AND IS IN A STATE OF CONTINUED DETERIORATION AND DISREPAIR. 
          THIS ABANDONED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY HAS BEEN LEFT OPEN AND HAS BEEN BECOME OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE THROUGH UNSECURED DOORS AND WINDOWS. 
          THIS STRUCTURE HAS BECOME AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE FOR VA ACTIVITIES, CRIMINALS, AND PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN SEVEN COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY, 2025 FOR THIS PROPERTY. 
          ON OCTOBER THE NINTH, 2025, A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED AND THE 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 AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE OF $370. 
          ON OCTOBER 10TH, 2025, I DOCUMENTED THE CASE AND MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE REGISTERED AGENT DE DETAILING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATIONS OBSERVED ON OCTOBER 17TH, 2025. 
          A FOLLOW A FOLLOW UP INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED AND THE 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 THE 21ST, 2025, THE CITY CONTRACTOR WAS DISPATCHED TO DEBATE TO ABATE THE PROPERTY OF ALL TRASH, RUBBISH, DEBRIS AND BRUSH. 
          THE CITY OF AUSTIN CUT AND CLEANED AND 16 CUBIC YARDS OF TRASH, RUBBISH AND DEBRIS WERE ABATED AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE TOTALING $1,200. 
          I PERFORMED MONTHLY FOLLOW-UP INSPECTIONS TO MONITOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. 
          ON NOVEMBER 10TH, 2025, INVESTIGATOR ED SUE PERFORMED AN INSPECTION AND OBSERVED THE STRUCTURE WAS DAMAGED BY FIRE AND OPEN AND ACCESSIBLE. 
          CITY OF AUSTIN DISPATCHED THE FENCING, UH, CONTRACTOR TO FENCE THE PROPERTY AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE TOTALING $662. 
          ON NOVEMBER THE 20TH, 2025, I DOCUMENTED THE CASE, MAILED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND REGISTERED AGENT DETAILING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE VIOLATIONS OBSERVED. 
          ON FEBRUARY THE FIFTH 2026, I PERFORMED A FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION AND OBSERVED AN ACCUMULATION OF TRASH, RUBBISH AND DEBRIS ON THE PROPERTY. 
          I ISSUED AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING CITATION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER DUE TO UNSANITARY CONDITIONS ON SITE. 
          I WILL NOW PRESENT MY PHOTOS AND DISCUSS THE VIOLATIONS DEPICTED. 
          PHOTO TWO A IS A CONTEXTUAL PHOTO OF THE FRONT OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          THE STRUCTURE IS BOARDED AND SECURED WITH TEMPORARY FENCING AROUND THE PROPERTY TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO THE STRUCTURE DUE TO ITS CONDITION. 
          NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. 
          PHOTO TWO B IS THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          GRAFFITI IS VISIBLE ON THE EXTERIOR WALL SURFACES. 
          THE STRUCTURE SHOWS SIGNS OF DETERIORATION INCLUDING DAMAGE AND MISSING SIDING, BOARDS AND EXPOSURE TO ELEMENTS DUE TO FIRE. 
          THE EXTERIOR WALLS NEXT TO THE PORCH HAS AN OPENING AND MAY ALLOW PEST AND RODENTS TO ENTER THE BUILDING. 
          NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. 
          PHOTO TWO C 
          [02:05:01]
IS ALSO THE EAST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          MULTIPLE OPENINGS ON THE STRUCTURE THAT HAVE BEEN COVERED WITH PLY WOOD BOARDS. 
          EXTERIOR SIDING IS DETERIORATING AND PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE ARE UNSECURED OR DAMAGED. 
          NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. 
          PHOTO 2D IS THE NORTH SIDE OR BACK OF THE STRUCTURE. 
          ALSO HAS MULTIPLE OPENINGS ON THE STRUCTURE THAT HAVE BEEN COVERED WITH PLYWOOD BOARDS. 
          EXTERIOR SIDING IS DETERIORATING AND DAMAGED. 
          NEXT PHOTO PLEASE. 
          PHOTO TWO E IS THE WEST SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE, WINDOWS OR ABORTED WITH PLYWOOD AND EXTERIOR SIDING SHOWS DETERIORATION. 
          THIS CONCLUDES MY TESTIMONY AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THOSE DESCRIBED IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CODE OFFICIAL FOUND THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS A PUBLIC AND AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE AND IS CONSIDERED UNSAFE WITH SUBSTANDARD CONDITIONS. 
          STAFF ASK THE COMMISSION TO ADMIT EXHIBIT ONE, WHICH INCLUDES STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND OTHER ELEMENT THE DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS MARKED AS EXHIBITS TWO A THROUGH TWO. 
          E STAFF ALSO REQUESTED 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 FIRE DAMAGE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE AND IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
          C REQUEST INSPECTIONS 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 $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 A RATE OF 10% PER YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNTIL PAID IN FULL. 
          AND WITH THAT, THE CITY CONCLUDES ITS PRESENTATION. 
          I'LL ADMIT EXHIBITS ONE AND TWO A THROUGH TWO E DOES THE, WE HAVE NO ONE HERE REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY. 
          SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF. 
          THE QUESTION, UM, THIS WAS REMOVED FROM LAST, LAST, UH, MONTH'S MEETING, RIGHT? IS THAT CORRECT? IT WAS REMOVED FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING. 
          I REMEMBER SEEING THIS. 
          NO, THIS IS THE SAME PROPERTY HERE. 
          2100. 
          IT'S A DIFFERENT PROPERTY, BUT THE SAME OWNER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IS IT THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR TO IT? UM, IT'S A COUPLE OF DOORS DOWN. 
          UM, IT'S A TOTAL OF SIX PROPERTIES THAT THIS SAME PROPERTY OWNS, OWNER OWNS, AND IT'S, UM, IT TAKES UP A BLOCK OF EAST CEDAR CAESAR CHAVE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, AND SO HE HAS MULTIPLE CASES OPEN WITH THE CITY? YES MA'AM. 
          HAVE YOU MADE CONTACT WITH HIM EARLY ON? UM, WHEN I FIRST, UH, RECEIVED THIS CASE BACK IN OCTOBER, I HAD PROBLEMS, UM, GETTING IN CONTACT WITH THEM VIA EMAIL, PHONE AND TEXT. 
          UM, SO I DID GO BY THEIR, HIS ONE OF HIS BUSINESSES AND I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TO HIM, UM, AND SPEAK TO ONE OF HIS REPRESENTATIVES. 
          AND THAT WENT ON FOR MAYBE A MONTH OR TWO. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND THEN THEY STOPPED COMMUNICATING WITH US ALTOGETHER. 
          THE LAST TIME I HAVE HEARD ANYTHING FROM THEM WAS IN, WHEN THEY GOT THE NOTICE FOR THE LAST HEARING BACK IN FEBRUARY, AND THEY STATED THEY WANTED SOME, THEY WERE GONNA GO AHEAD AND TRY TO SPEED UP THE DEMOLITION PRO PROCESS. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          BUT THEY HAVE NOT PULLED ANY PERMITS OR APPLIED FOR ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THEY, SO THEY DID TELL YOU WHAT THEY HAVE PLANS FOR THE, FOR THE, UM, PROPERTY? YES. 
          THAT'S BEEN THE PLAN SINCE I FIRST SPOKE WITH THEM. 
          UM, SINCE ANOTHER, UM, CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAD THIS CASE OF IN LATE 2024 MM-HMM . 
          BUT NO PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE AND THEY'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD ON IT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          DO WE KNOW IF THEIR TAXES ARE CURRENT? I HAVE NOT CHECKED THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. PROPERTY RIGHT THERE. 
          PRIME REAL ESTATE, HIGH TAXES. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I NEED A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          NEED A SECOND? SECOND. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          AND A SECOND. 
          ALL IN FAVOR? 
          [02:10:01]
AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          CHAIR VOTES. 
          AYE. 
          SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED NOW WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO. 
          UH, COUNSEL, DO WE HAVE THE OPTION HERE TO INCREASE THE PENALTY TO MORE THAN A THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK BECAUSE IT'S NON-RESIDENTIAL? UH, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          SO IT'D BE, UH, $1,000. 
          IT COULD, IT COULD BE A MAXIMUM OF $1,000 PER VIOLATION PER DAY. 
          AND, UH, CAN YOU TELL US HOW MANY VIOLATIONS THERE ARE? KEEPING IN MIND? OF COURSE, THAT HAS TO BE REASONABLE OR IT GETS THROWN OUT IN COURT LATER. 
          SOMEONE'S LOOKING IT UP. 
          YOU SAID IT COULD BE A THOUSAND DOLLARS PER VIOLATION. 
          DAY PER PER VIOLATION. 
          PER DAY. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND THAT'S BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A HOMESTEADED PROPERTY. 
          I KNOW THAT THERE'S AT LEAST TWO VIOLATIONS. 
          IS THIS, IS THIS PROPERTY OWNER PART OF OUR REPEAT OFFENDER PROGRAM? PROGRAM? COUNSEL, I, I WANNA CHECK IN. 
          DO WE NEED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE? I JUST DON'T WANT THIS TO OH NO BE FLAGGED. 
          GOOD CALL. 
          UM, WHILE THIS IS BEING INVESTIGATED, IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE BEFORE WE START ASKING MORE QUESTIONS OR HAVING ANY DISCUSSION. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I DON'T YOU DON'T WANT A PROCEDURAL APPEAL? NO. 
          UNDER UNDERSTOOD. 
          IF, UM, WHAT WE CAN DO OR WE CAN JUST PAUSE AND WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE CONFIRMATION OF THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS. 
          IT'S UP TO YOU ALL. 
          SO, WE'LL WAIT FOR A MINUTE. 
          EXCUSE ME. 
          IT'S THREE VIOLATIONS. 
          THREE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES. 
          COMMISSIONERS. 
          I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. 
          NOT GONNA DO IT TODAY. 
          MM-HMM. 
          HARRISON, YOU CAN, YOU CAN DO THIS. 
          JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE THE NEW GUY DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T. 
          SO YOU EITHER THE THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK OR YOU CAN SAY, OKAY, UM, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION. 
          UM, AND THEN WE CAN, THERE CAN BE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. 
          I'LL ACCEPT AMENDMENTS, UM, FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS. 
          UM, I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE STAFF'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY. 
          SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          DO WE HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS MOTION? I'LL LIKE TO ENTERTAIN MORE THAN A THOUSAND DOLLARS A WEEK. 
          IS THERE SOMETHING YOU'RE, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR? I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT MEANINGFUL, UM, WITHOUT GETTING OUT OF HAND, AS I'VE BEEN TOLD BEFORE, IF WE GET EXCESSIVE, UM, COURT TENDS TO THROW IT OUT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          SO WE HAVE TO BE REASONABLE, BUT PERSUASIVE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS A THOUSAND A WEEK. 
          I, UM, YES. 
          I, AND I DO RECOMMEND ALSO THAT WE ACT ON THIS CASE EXCLUSIVELY ON THE MERITS OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE IN FRONT OF US. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION. 
          SO, SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO ADOPT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY. 
          AND THAT WAS SECONDED. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. 
          MM-HMM . 
          WE HAVE NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. 
          LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          COMMISSIONER BROWN. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GARZA. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER GILKER. 
          AYE. 
          COMMISSIONER IBARRA AYE. 
          AND CHAIR VOTES. 
          AYE. 
          SO IT IS UNANIMOUS. 
          THANK YOU FOLKS. 
          ALRIGHT, NOW I'LL ENTERTAIN, LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE IS ON OUR AGENDA. 
          DO WE HAVE 
          [FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEMS OR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? WE HAVE SOME FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. OKAY, SO LAST MONTH, UM, THE COMMISSION ASKED TO, TO, TO CONTINUE, UH, 76 2, UH, 27 6 2 0 PARKVIEW CIRCLE, UM, CL 2 0 2 5 DASH 1 1 4 0 7 1. 
          UM, 
          [02:15:01]
OWNER BETTY A EPSTEIN. 
          UM, SO THAT WILL, UH, WE INTEND TO PUT THAT ON THE APRIL AGENDA. 
          AND, UM, THE CASE THAT WAS CONTINUED, OR THE CASE THAT WAS PULLED FROM THE AGENDA THIS MONTH, UH, 2 6 0 7 SOUTH IH 35 SERVICE ROAD NORTHBOUND. 
          WE INTEND TO BRING THAT BACK FOR THE COMMISSION IN APRIL. 
          AND THEN IN APRIL WE NEED TO ELECT THE, UH, BSC OFFICERS, THE CHAIR, AND THE VICE CHAIR. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH. 
          ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY? OR CAN I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN? WAIT, I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          DID WE AGREE ON A COMMISSION RETREAT DATE? WHAT? AT YOUR LAST MEETING, Y'ALL? SO WHAT THE COMMISSION DECIDED WAS FOR ME TO LOOK AT DATES FOR THREE DATES IN JUNE, AND I'VE RESERVED ALL THREE OF THOSE DATES FOR THE ROOM UPSTAIRS. 
          UM, AND WE JUST, WE'LL DECIDE WHICH DAY. 
          I MEAN, YOU DIDN'T MAKE A DECISION AS TO ONE DAY YOU GAVE ME THREE AVAILABLE DATES, WHICH WAS, UH, JUNE, WAS IT EIGHTH, NINTH? IT WAS, UH, TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, AND THURSDAY. 
          THE SECOND WEEK IN JUNE. 
          SO IF YOU HAVE A A WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T REALLY, UH, IT'S NOT POSTED FOR ACTION TONIGHT FOR YOU TO MAKE ANY FURTHER DETERMINATION. 
          UH, WE JUST LOOKED, BUT THEY ARE AVAILABLE ALL THREE DATES. 
          IF YOU DO WANT TO CHOOSE ONE OF THOSE DATES, WE COULD PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH. 
          WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO DO THAT? WHAT DATES DID YOU SAY? UM, IT'S THE SECOND WEEK IN JUNE. 
          SO IT'S THE NINTH, 10TH, AND 11TH WERE THE THREE DAYS THAT Y'ALL SELECTED. 
          AND, BUT YOU DIDN'T SPECIFY A PARTICULAR DATE. 
          WE WERE JUST GONNA LOOK AT AVAILABILITY OF ALL THREE DATES. 
          THEY'RE ALL THREE AVAILABLE FOR THE ROOM. 
          WE WERE GONNA, WE WANTED TO RESERVE AS OUR NEWEST MEMBER. 
          HARRISON, CAN YOU CHECK YOUR CALENDAR? I THINK IT COULD BE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT. 
          WE, WE ONLY DO THIS ONCE A YEAR. 
          I'VE NEVER EVEN DONE ONE. 
          SO I HAVE A SUMMER LEGAL INTERNSHIP. 
          UM, IT'LL BE DURING THE WEEK. 
          DO WE KNOW WHAT TIME OF DAY IT WOULD BE DURING THE DAYTIME? SO, UH, TYPICALLY IT'S FOR FOUR OR FIVE HOURS DURING, YOU KNOW, WE OVER THE, WE'LL HAVE LUNCH IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. 
          UM, ROBERT, I THINK WHAT WE DO, 10 TO TWO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          WHAT, WHAT HOURS ARE YOU LOOKING AT OR WHAT WOULD LIKE GET YOU THERE? , YOU'LL HAVE A JOB. 
          YEAH, I NEED TO CHECK WITH MY YEAH. 
          SUPERVISOR. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, WE'RE FLEXIBLE. 
          I MEAN, IF WE JUST NEED TO MOVE THE HOURS TO LET YOU, TO ALLOW YOU TO ATTEND AND WE, I'M, I'M WILLING TO DO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I, I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH THEM AND GET BACK TO Y'ALL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          WHO DO I, DO I CONTACT? MELANIE, WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO PUT THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH? YES, PLEASE. 
          OKAY. 
          PLEASE, YEAH. 
          CONTACT MELANIE. 
          OKAY. 
          WITH YOUR, WITH YOUR HOURS IF YOU'RE ABLE TO DO IT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          EVERYBODY TRY AND GO AWAY AND MAKE SURE THE HOURS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE AVAILABLE DURING THOSE, THOSE THREE DAYS THAT AT LEAST WE'VE GOT IT NARROWED DOWN TO A FEW DAYS. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          I JUST WANNA BLOCK OFF TIME. 
          THE LAST TIME WE SAID WE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE WITH CONFLICTS ALL AROUND ALL THE OTHER DAYS THAT YOU HAD SUGGESTED. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, I, I DON'T WANT TO LIKE MOVE THIS JUST BASED OFF OF ME, BUT I THINK PROBABLY WHAT WOULD BE BEST IS LIKE THE LATER IN THE DAY IT IS, WOULD BE LIKE, THE EASIER FOR ME TO, TO MAKE IT. 
          SO I'M JUST CURIOUS, LIKE, WOULD THAT INTERFERE WITH Y'ALL OR, YEAH, WE'LL JUST DO Y DO Y HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR YOU ALL CAN FURTHER DISCUSS IN APRIL AND NEXT MONTH? WE WILL. 
          WE WILL DO JUST THAT. 
          SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. 
          MOTION TO ADJOURN. 
          SECOND. 
          AYE. 
          ALL ALL IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT? AYE. 
          AYE. 
          AND THE TIME IS 8 55. 
          THANK YOU EVERYBODY. 
          THANK YOU FOLKS.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.