[00:00:07]
IF EVERYONE WILL TAKE THEIR SEATS AND GET READY.
WE'RE GONNA START, UH, PLEASE REMEMBER TO SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES.
YEAH, IT IS NINE OH FOUR AND THE, UH, BUILDING STANDARDS BOARD.
SAN ANTONIO PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SUBCOMMITTEE, UH, WILL BEGIN.
CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL? HERNANDEZ THOMAS FRANKS.
ALSO PRESENT IN THE MEETING FROM THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.
FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.
SAVITA RICE AND FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
INTERIM DIRECTOR MELISSA RAMIREZ.
INTERIM DEPUTY DIRECTOR DANNY EZ.
CODE ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATOR.
VALERIE RODRIGUEZ, SENIOR PLANNER.
KD LIAISON, CHAIR OF QUORUM IS PRESENT.
UM, UM, JUST A SMALL REMINDER OF THE, WE WILL DO THIS IS, UM, THE CITY WILL PRESENT, UH, THEN WE WILL ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN, UM, THE COMMITTEE CAN, UH, DISCUSS AND, OR MAKE MOTIONS ALREADY READY.
MADAM CHAIR, WE NEED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, UM, FROM OUR LAST TWO MINUTES.
WILL WE DO THE SPANISH TRANSLATION SERVICES? OH, YEAH.
SPANISH, UH, SPANISH INTERPRETATION.
SO FOR THE MINUTES, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE GONNA BE APPROVING THE MINUTES AT FULL BOARD.
IS THAT WHAT WAS SAID LAST MEETING? IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.
WHAT, WHAT WE HAD MENTIONED AT THE LAST MEETING IS THEY WEREN'T READY TO BE CONSIDERED AT THAT MEETING THAT WE WOULD HAVE THEM ON THIS AGENDA.
WE DON'T HAVE THEM ON THIS AGENDA.
THEY'RE JUST NOT ON THE ACTUAL AGENDA.
SO THEN WE'LL HAVE TO PUSH THEM TO THE NEXT MEETING.
IT'S RIGHT THERE ON OUR FACE AND WE'RE NOT READING IT.
SO I, I WAS YOU MORE INVOLVED? OKAY.
IT'S, IT'S NINE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.
UM, THE ITEM NUMBER ONE,
UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVED SECOND.
NO, WE DON'T NEED DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES UNLESS SOMEONE HAS A POINT.
DANIEL LEE IS CODE ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATOR.
WE HAVE THREE TABLED ITEMS THAT WE'RE GONNA GO OVER TODAY.
UH, THE FIRST ITEM WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT IS ITEM NUMBER 47.
UH, IT IS A, UM, EXTERNAL AMENDMENT THAT WAS, UH, TABLED, UH, LAST MEETING, UH, IN REGARDS TO SECTION 1 0 7 0.1, NOTICE TO PERSONS RESPONSIBLE.
AND, UM, THIS ITEM HERE THAT WE DISCUSSED HERE WAS A, UH, SECTION WHERE WE WOULD BE, UH, REQUESTING TO OMIT OR REMOVE RATHER THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION IN RED, UH, WHICH SPEAKS TO THE TWO YEAR, UM, UH, NOTIFICATION OR NOTICE, UH, PROCESS.
SO, UH, WE'LL START THE CONVERSATION THERE.
AND THEN WE HAVE SOME INPUT ALSO FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN REGARDS TO THE, THE TWO YEAR NOTICE AS WELL.
UM, I WENT BACK AND RESEARCHED ON, UH, UNDER HEALTH AND
[00:05:01]
SAFETY CODE 3 42.AND IT IS VERY SPECIFIC THAT IT IS ONE YEAR.
AND, UH, WHEN WE BOUNCE THIS AROUND, UH, WITH MY COLLEAGUES, UH, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, UH, IT'S VERY SPECIFIC THAT IF STATE LAW ADDRESSES A PARTICULAR ISSUE AND SAYS ONE YEAR, WE CANNOT CONTRADICT THAT.
AND SO THE TWO YEARS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO ONE YEAR.
UM, ONLY WHEN A STATE STATUTE IS SILENT CAN WE ADD TO OUR ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER, IN THIS INSTANCE, BECAUSE IT CLEARLY OUTLINES THE ONE YEAR, THEN WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE ONE YEAR AS OPPOSED TO TWO YEARS.
UM, MIKE AND MARK, YOU ALL HAD BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE, UH, THE PAP WITH NOTICES BEING REQUIRED FOR EACH ONE, THE PAPER WAS CREATED UNDER OUR HOME RULE AUTHORITY, AND SO WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE DUE PROCESS THAN IS REQUIRED BY ISSUING NOTICES EACH TIME.
HOWEVER, UH, UNDER 3 42 DUE PROCESS WOULD BECOME AN ISSUE IF WE IGNORED THE ONE YEAR AND EXPANDED IT TO TWO AS IT IS.
SO THAT WAS A MISTAKE, UH, FROM EARLIER.
SO I I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
SO YOU COULD, THE CITY, IT WOULD BE LEGAL FOR THE CITY TO REQUIRE NOTICE EVERY TIME FOR YOU TO GET FINED, BUT YOU CAN'T DO MORE THAN ONE YEAR IN THAT DEAL.
IF, IF SO, IF THEY KEEP THE LANGUAGE, IT IS, IT HAS TO BE CHANGED TO ONE YEAR, OR YOU COULD TAKE IT OUT COMPLETELY CORRECT.
WELL, BECAUSE 3 42 GOVERNS PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODES, UM, THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF THE LAW, WE WOULD HAVE, WE WOULD, UH, LIKE YOU SAID, KEEP THE ONE YEAR.
WE CANNOT DO AWAY WITH THE ONE YEAR UNDER OUR HOME RULE AUTHORITY BECAUSE THE STATE IS SILENT ON PROPERTY APARTMENT INSPECTION PROGRAMS. WE'RE ABLE TO GO UNDER OUR HOME ROAD AUTHORITY AND PROVIDE MORE DUE PROCESS THAN WERE ACTUALLY REQUIRED UNDER THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SPECIFIC TO 3 42.
DOES THAT CONFUSE YOU? I, I AM, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I DO THIS QUITE OFTEN, IS THAT THE STATE STATUTE SETS THE MINIMUM THAT YOU CAN DO, YOU CAN DO MORE DUE PROCESS BY ORDINANCE BECAUSE THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME.
AND, AND SO IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN'T SAY THAT TWO YEARS APPLIES BECAUSE THAT IS DIRECT CONFLICT WITH STATE STATUTE GOVERNING IT.
HOWEVER, I BELIEVE YOU COULD SAY YOU HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE EVERY TIME.
AND THAT WOULD BE LEGAL BECAUSE IT, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S IN THE PERSON WHO IS GETTING CITED, UH, BENEFIT TO GIVE MORE NOTICE.
AND YOU GIVE MORE NOTICE ON A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE STATE SAYS, HERE'S THIS STANDARD.
IF, IF THE STATE DIDN'T, SPECIFICALLY, IF THE STATE STATUTE DIDN'T SPECIFICALLY STATE UPON THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY, A SITE, UH, NOTICE IS NOT REQUIRED.
IF IT DID NOT HAVE THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, THEN I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.
BUT BECAUSE IT HAS THAT, WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE BLACK LETTER OF THE STATE STATUTE.
SO FOR APARTMENTS, THEY'RE GETTING MORE DUE PROCESS BECAUSE 3 42 DOESN'T GOVERN PAPS.
THE WORD MAY IN THAT STATUTE DOESN'T CHANGE IT.
I, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE, IT DOESN'T PASS.
UH, AGAIN, NOT A LAWYER, BUT IT DOESN'T PASS THE SMELL TEST THAT THE CITY IS NOT ALLOWED TO PROVIDE MORE DUE PROCESS THAN WHAT IS, YOU KNOW, THE MINIMUM STANDARD ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE.
LIKE, THAT DOESN'T, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
UM, AND ALSO, AND, AND THEN THE SECOND POINT WOULD BE THE CITY AVOIDED LAWSUIT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS, UM, HAVING EXCEEDED THE DUE PROCESS, MINIMUM STANDARD, IS THERE ACTUALLY A RISK TO THE CITY OF ENACTING AN ORDINANCE THAT PROVIDES MORE DUE, DILI MORE, UM, DUE PROCESS TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY? I, I THINK WHEN THE, WHEN I LOOKED BACK AT THE, UH, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, I WAS LOOKING MORE AT TWO 14, UH, A LITTLE BIT AT 3 42.
UH, THE HARM TO THE CITY WHEN IT COMES TO OUTSIDE OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES, THERE'S SO
[00:10:01]
MANY MORE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, WHAT HAVE YOU, THAT THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY DOES TALK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY DON'T WANNA PUT AN UNDUE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON, UH, CITIES AND TOWNS BY, UH, REQUIRING OR, UH, DOING FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.THEY'RE, THEY HAVE THE ONE YEAR NOTICE FOR LOOK, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE FINANCIAL BURDEN THAT WOULD BE PLACED ON CITIES IF WE DID DO NOTICE EACH TIME FOR RESIDENCES OR, UH, BUSINESSES OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
AND SO THAT IS THE HARM THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS LOOKING AT, IS THE FINANCIAL COST.
THE STATE IS PROHIBITING THE CITY FOR ITS OWN GOOD FROM PROVIDING DUE DUE PROCESS TO ITS CITIZENS.
IS THAT, IS THAT BECAUSE THAT KIND OF A CHANGE? I THINK, YEAH.
I, I, THE STATE IS LOOKING AT NOT ADDING AN UNDUE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON CITIES BECAUSE THEY'RE LOOKING AT THAT THE CITIES ARE FUNDED BY TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
SO I WOULD LOOK AT IT THAT WAY AS OPPOSED TO THE DUE PROCESS ISSUE.
I MEAN, ONE, ONE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE MORE THAN, BECAUSE THE APARTMENT DEAL, THEY HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE.
SO IT'S NOT A BIG IN THE INSPECTION ORDINANCE.
ONE THING THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE WHEN YOU'RE GONNA ABATE.
THERE'S A LOT OF VACANT LAND AROUND SAN ANTONIO, AND WE'VE HAD SEVERAL INSTANCES WHERE WE DON'T EVEN GET A NOTICE.
AND THEN THEY, THEY HIRE, YOU KNOW, HAD THEY, YOU GET A NEW CODE, OFFICIAL DOESN'T KNOW WHO OWNS IT, DOES, YOU KNOW, NEW TO THE AREA AND JUST SAY, LOOKS UP AND SAYS, OKAY, X, Y, Z MONTHS AGO, THEY GOT A NOTICE.
NOW WE'RE JUST GONNA GO RIGHT TO ABATEMENT.
AND WE DON'T EVEN FIND OUT, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S BEEN ABATED UNTIL WE RUN A TITLE RUN.
AND, YOU KNOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY.
YOU KNOW, AND THAT HAPPENED TO MY MOTHER, WHO WAS 104 YEARS OLD, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, WE DID SOME ESTATE PLANNING AND TRANSFERRED AND HAD A TITLE PO AND FOUND OUT, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS AGO, THERE'S A LIEN FILED ON THE PROPERTY THAT NOBODY KNEW ABOUT.
AND SO I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO IT FOR JUST THE REGULAR CITATIONS, WHICH I DON'T, I'M GONNA BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING, YOU KNOW, IS THE FACT, I THINK ON ABATEMENTS, YOU MUST GIVE NOTICE BEFORE YOU ABATE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GIVE PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BEFORE THE CITY.
YOU KNOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE A $10,000 BILL, YOU KNOW THAT THEY CONTRACTED OUT WITH SOMEBODY TO MOW THE LAND WITHOUT EVEN NOTICING YOU.
THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE, I DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM IF YOU'RE GONNA FIND SOMEONE, 'CAUSE YOU'LL GO IN AND YOU'LL GET A A HUNDRED DOLLARS FINE, HERE'S YOUR LESSON.
BUT TO, TO PUT SOMEBODY AT RISK OF JUST, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE LIKE DEMOLISHING THEIR HOUSE WITHOUT NOTICE OR, OR GOING IN AND, YOU KNOW, YOU GET CITED FOR SOMETHING AND YOU ABATE IT WITHOUT ANY NOTICE.
SO WHAT WE WOULD THEN ASK, IF WHAT YOU'RE GONNA DO IS LEAVE IT, CHANGE IT TO THE ONE YEAR THAT A NOTICE IS REQUIRED, BUT PRIOR TO ANY ABATEMENT BEING DONE, BECAUSE I THINK YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE CITIZEN THE RIGHT TO CURE THE PROBLEM BEFORE YOU GO OUT AND HIRE A THIRD PARTY CONTRACTOR TO JUST GO DO SOMETHING.
UH, I, I HATE TO INTERRUPT HERE, BUT I HAVE A CLARIFICATION QUESTION HERE.
UH, OUR, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A REPEATED, LIKE A SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, UH, VIOLATION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH IT SAYS THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY, AND I DO REMEMBER THAT LANGUAGE FROM BEFORE, BUT IT'S, YOU'RE SAYING IT'S ONE YEAR, SO WE DO NEED TO CHANGE THAT ASPECT OF IT.
BUT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE IS IT LOOKS LIKE A CROSS OUT OF THE ENTIRE SECTION.
SO WHAT EXACTLY IS IT THAT WE'RE, WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE? SO IT'S REALLY A TWO PART.
SO INITIALLY WHAT IT WAS, IT WAS PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO STRIKE OUT THE ENTIRE SECTION.
AS WE STARTED LOOKING AT IT FURTHER, WE STARTED LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE, WHETHER IT'S ONE OR TWO YEARS, RIGHT? SO WE'RE GONNA BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DENY THE EXTERNAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO STRIKE OUT THE ENTIRE SECTION, HOWEVER, TO APPROVE THE MODIFIED, UH, WITH, I GUESS I'M ASSUMING TO APPROVE IT'S A MODIFICATION, MEANING CHANGES IN TWO YEAR TO THE ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY.
SO IT'S KINDA LIKE A TWO PART DEAL, IF YOU WILL.
AND, AND JUST FOR MY OWN CLARITY HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CITATIONS, NOT ABATEMENTS.
[00:15:02]
I THINK THEY'RE TALKING, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ARE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BOTH, SO WE'RE TALKING JUST CITATIONS LEADING UP TO ABATEMENTS? NO, WE'RE TALKING JUST AN INITIAL NOTICE OF VIOLATION.THE VERY FIRST NOTICE YOU RECEIVED FOR THE OFFENSE THAT WE OBSERVED.
SO THIS IS JUST THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OR THE FINE WHEN IT'S SECOND, THIRD, WORST TIME THAT THEY'VE BEEN OUT.
THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT CORRECT BECAUSE OF NO NOTICE OF IS GIVEN.
AND A NOTICE IS PRE TO BE GIVEN, LET'S SAY 11 MONTHS AGO.
THE CITY AT THAT POINT DOES NOT HAVE TO GIVE THE OWNER ANY NOTICE AT ALL.
AND THEY CAN MOVE STRICTLY RIGHT TO ABATEMENT AT THE CODE OFFICER'S DIRECTION WITHOUT, WITHOUT NOTICE.
I THINK, I THINK HER QUESTION WAS, IF WE'RE TALKING CITATIONS OR NOTICES IN THIS CASE FOR THE ENTIRE SECTION, IT'S TITLED NOTICES TO PERSONAL RESPONSIBLE.
SO WE'RE SPEAKING NOTICES ONLY.
SO THIS IS JUST NOTICES AND WELL, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, THIS SPECIFIC SECTION, THIS PART RIGHT HERE IS WHAT WE'RE, WHAT IS ON THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR, UH, SAVITA, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
SO I'M LOOKING, I JUST PULLED IT UP AGAIN, NOT A LAWYER, BUT I, I THINK I CAN READ, RIGHT.
SO, UM, THAT PART WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE ONE YEAR, THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THAT'S MENTIONED IS UNDER 3 4 2 0 0 6, WHICH IS TITLED WORKER IMPROVEMENTS BY MUNICIPALITY.
SO THAT'S NOT ABOUT NOTICES TO PER, THAT'S NOT ABOUT CITATIONS OR NOTICES OF VIOLATION.
IT'S ABOUT DOES THE CITY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO JUST GO DO THE WORK, UM, WITHIN ANY, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S HAPPENED, UM, WITHIN A YEAR, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH JUST DOING A, A, LIKE THE VIOLATION.
UM, SO HOW, HOW DOES THAT TRANSLATE TO THE, THE, THE MAIN THING THAT SAYS, I MEAN, I MEAN, HOW MAY REQUIRE OR, OR HOW DOES THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE ITS ORDINANCES? IT'S EARLIER AND I'M, I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE, UH, 3 42 IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT'S EARLIER IN 3 42 WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT NOTICES.
UM, I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE THAT SECTION, BUT I, I THINK WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH THE NOTICE.
BUT THEY'RE COMPLETELY SEPARATE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOTICE WE GO BY THE ONE YEAR.
SO THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW IS, IS IT ACCEPTABLE TO CHANGE IT FROM TWO YEARS TO ONE? AND BY STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, WE HAVE TO CHANGE IT TO ONE.
BEFORE YOU, UH, JUST REAL QUICK ON THE ABATEMENT PART, THE AB UH, ABATEMENTS AREN'T DISCUSSED UNDER SAMHSA.
THEY'RE DISCUSSED UNDER CHAPTER SIX AND CHAPTER 14.
AND THE STATE HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT ABATEMENTS MAY OCCUR WITHIN ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY, OR IF IT'S WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, OR IF IT'S OVER 1248 INCHES.
I HAVE THIS SECTION RIGHT HERE ON ABATEMENTS, AND IT'S 1 0 6 0.5.
IT SAYS ABATEMENT OF VIOLATION.
UH, IF YOU READ THROUGH THAT, IT'S 1 0 6 0.5.
YEAH, THAT'S FOR, THAT'S GRANTING THE CITY ATTORNEY AUTHORITY TO FILE SUIT TO OBEY IN ADDITION TO THE REMEDIES IN SAMHSA.
SO YOU CAN'T JUST, CODE OFFICER CAN'T JUST GO OUT AND SAY, OH, LOOK, THERE'S A VIOLATION.
THERE, THERE, THERE'S A PROCESS.
NO, NOT UNDER THIS CODE AT ALL.
WE DO NOT DO ABATEMENTS UNDER THIS SECTION OF CODE AT ALL.
AS, AS SAVITA, OUR CITY ATTORNEY HAD MENTIONED, IT'S, IT'S HELD UNDER CHAPTER 14.
AND, UM, WE HAVE PROCESSES IN PLACE UNDER, UNDER THAT CHAPTER.
THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT MUST BE INCLUDED IN THAT CHAPTER WITH THOSE NOTIFICATIONS.
IF WE DO IT AND THE BILLING COMES, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD TO APPEAL, AS SOME CASES HAVE BEEN HEARD, WHERE SOMEBODY WANTS TO APPEAL A SUMMARILY ABATEMENT, THAT'S WHERE A PROPERTY HAS BEEN ABATED DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE ISSUE.
BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO THEN APPEAL THAT ABATEMENT AND THAT BILLING.
AND THAT'S WHERE THAT PROCESS LIES.
IT DOES NOT LIE ANYWHERE HERE IN, IN, UM, THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTION.
SO THAT'S FOR, THAT'S FOR BUILDINGS NOT RAW POINT OF ORDER.
MADAM CHAIR? NO, THAT'S FOR ABOUT, WE NEED TO STAY ON TRACK.
I WANNA REMIND THE PUBLIC THAT IT IS PUBLIC COMMENT.
SO CAN, IF WE CAN PLEASE STOP INTERRUPTING.
SO MY REQUEST HERE IS THAT WE STICK TO THIS ITEM, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
BUT, UH, SO THE FULL BOARD MEETING ON THE FIFTH, UH, CAN WE ANSWER THIS QUESTION
[00:20:01]
AND CAN, ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO COME TO THE FOR FULL BOARD SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE ABATEMENTS? BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN ITEM, UH, THAT, UH, A TIME THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THAT.RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TO STAY WITH WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
AND MADAM, MADAM CHAIR, WHAT QUESTION EXACTLY WE NEED TO BE READY TO ANSWER.
UM, GENTLEMEN, YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THE ABATEMENTS, WHICH IS LIKE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ABATE SOMETHING THAT NOTICE IS GIVEN PRIOR TO THE ABATEMENT, WHICH I THINK IS A FAIR, WHICH PRETTY MUCH ANYBODY BEFORE YOU WERE GONNA ZAP A OWNER WITH.
I MEAN, AND THEN I, I, I THINK THE CITY CAN HAVE A MORE LIBERAL STANDARD THAN THE STATE STATUTE, BUT WE'LL GET YOU SOMEBODY TO WRITE AN OPINION ON THAT, UH, BEFORE WE GET TO THE BOARD UNIT SO YOU CAN REVIEW IT.
UH, UH, AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK ONE MORE TIME.
I, I JUST, AGAIN, I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT IF THIS COMMITTEE DECIDED THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE THINK ONE YEAR IS THE RIGHT THING, UM, IT IT IS WHAT IT IS.
WE'VE SAID OUR PIECE, WE EITHER CONVINCED 'EM OR WE DON'T.
I DON'T LIKE THAT IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO FIND AN EXCUSE TO TAKE THAT DECISION OUTTA THEIR HAND.
AND YOU KNOW, IF YOU JUST SAID CHAPTER 14, WHICH IS IF, IF CHAPTER 14 IS WHAT GOVERNS ABATEMENTS, UM, THAT'S GOVERNED BY 3 42 AS WELL.
AND IF WE'RE SAYING THAT WE GIVE A NOTICE AND WE HAVE THIS PROCESS EVEN WITHIN A YEAR FOR CHAPTER 14, WHY IS THE SAME LAW NOT ALLOW IT TO BE, YOU KNOW, CITATIONS TO BE ISSUED, UM, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENTLY IN CHAPTER SIX, THAT DOESN'T, AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
SO I KNOW WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ABATEMENTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CITATIONS AND NOTICES OF VIOLATION HERE.
WHAT YOU'RE TELLING THE COMMITTEE IS THAT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE A DECISION TO ELIMINATE, YOU KNOW, TO REQUIRE THE CITY TO GIVE A VIOLATION NOTICE FOR EVERY SINGLE VIOLATION.
AND, AND I JUST, I JUST BY A PLAIN READING OF THE TEXT, IT'S A ONE PAGE STATUTE.
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO, TO, DOESN'T SEEM TO MAKE SENSE.
AND I JUST, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IF THE, IF THE COMMITTEE DECIDES THEY DON'T LIKE IT, I CAN LIVE WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT EASIER, BUT I'D WANT THEM TO AT LEAST BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION.
AND, AND, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, I MEAN, THE PART THAT I AM TELLING THE COMMITTEE IS THE TWO YEAR, UM, OH, WHAT, WHAT I AM TELLING THE COMMITTEE IS WE CANNOT CONTRADICT STATE STATUTE, WHICH SAYS ONE YEAR, BUT THAT, THAT'S ALL I'M TELLING THE COMMITTEE.
I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHICH WAY, UH, TO, UH, WHICH WAY YOU SHOULD VIEW IT OR DISCUSS IT OR, UM, DECIDE ON IT.
UH, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE COMMITTEE IS AWARE, WE'RE LIMITED RIGHT NOW TO THE NOTICE UNDER SAMHSA ONE YEAR AND WHY THE TWO YEAR IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
UM, AGAIN, WE WILL KEEP IT TO THE ITEMS ON THE, UH, AGENDA, THE THREE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE, UH, THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW.
BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, GET THE LANGUAGE, UM, THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT PUTS IT INTO THE ONE YEAR AND, UH, FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THE ABATEMENTS AT THE FULL BOARD MEETING, PLEASE.
AND I, I HOPE PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO COME TO THE BOARD.
UM, MR. FRANKS, YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY? YEAH.
WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU ASKING FOR THE FULL BOARD TO REVIEW? ARE WE, LEMME REPHRASE THAT.
ARE WE TABLING THIS FOR THE, UH, FULL BOARD? NO, NO, NOT THIS ITEM.
UH, THE, THE E EXTRA ITEM THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS, UH, WAS BEING DISCUSSED.
JUDY, IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN MAKE SURE THAT ONE IS ON THE AGENDA? PRETTY PLEASE.
I MEAN, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.
UM, AND IT COULD BE FOR THE FULL BOARD, LIKE TO PREPARE FOR, ARE THE NOTICES CONCURRENT? LIKE IF, UM, THEY MOVE TO ABATEMENT, DOES IT GET RESET FOR THE YEAR AS IN THE STATUTE? OR DO THEY RUN CONCURRENTLY, LIKE, WHICH IS THEY GOT THE NOTICE AND THEN YOU, WITHIN THAT YEAR YOU MOVED TO ABATEMENT AND BECAUSE THEY GOT ONE NOTICE? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SHE'S ASKING IF THEY, THAT RESETS THE TIME.
SO IF A, IF A NEW NOTICE IS ISSUED FOR AN ABATEMENT THAT STARTS THAT CLOCK, THAT THAT NOTICE IS DATED AT THAT TIME AND THAT STARTS THE CLOCK AGAIN.
SO I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S CONCURRENT BY, BY YOUR EXAMPLE.
SO THERE IS A NOTICE IF, IF A NOTICE IS ISSUED FOR OVERGROWN WHEAT, HERE'S MY EXAMPLE FOR YOU, AND MAYBE IT APPLIES FOR YOU.
IF A NOTICE IS ISSUED FROM THIS SECTION OF THE CODE FOR OVERGROWN
[00:25:01]
WEEDS AND THEY DO NOT COMPLY, AND WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A YEAR TO ISSUE A CITATION, OR THEY DO COMPLY, THE CASE IS CLOSED, SIX MONTHS LATER, THE WEEDS ARE GROWN AGAIN, WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO EITHER ISSUE A NEW NOTICE OR FILE A CITATION, FILE A CITATION BASED ON THAT PREVIOUS DATE, BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN THAT ONE YEAR TIME, IT DOES NOT GIVE US ANY AUTHORITY UNDER THIS SECTION TO ABATE.ABATE IS TO, FOR, IN MY WORLD, ABATE MEANS TO CUT OR TO REMOVE.
THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT HOW WE DEFINE, THAT'S HOW WE USE THAT, THAT LANGUAGE.
IF I, IF IT WAS SO EGREGIOUS, I CAN TELL YOU WE WOULDN'T GO TO REMOVE A PILE OF CANS.
WE WOULDN'T GO TO GO PAY SOMEBODY, A CONTRACTOR TO GO OUT THERE.
BUT IF THIS PLACE IS JUST WALL TO WALL ITEMS, WEEDS, TRASH, FIRE HAZARD, EVERYTHING THERE, AND AN OFFICER PRESENTED THAT TO ME, I WOULD THEN HAVE THEM GO POST A NOTICE FOR AN ABATEMENT.
THAT IS A POSTING, THAT'S A LETTER MAILED, THAT'S A POSTING AT THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT, THERE'S TWO, THERE'S PROCESSES IN PLACE FOR THAT AT THE, WHEN THAT EXPIRES, THEN WE WOULD HAVE THAT CLEANED, THE BILLING WOULD COME OUT.
SO THERE'S, THERE'S TWO SEPARATE TRACKS.
THEY CAN, THEY CAN FOLLOW EACH OTHER, BUT THEY'RE STILL VERY SEPARATELY DONE, UM, TO TRACK, TO MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW THOSE STEPS.
AND SO SWITCHING THE LANGUAGE FROM TWO YEARS TO ONE YEAR ACTUALLY SOFTENS THIS REQUIREMENT.
IF, IF, IF YOU'RE A HOMEOWNER, YOU DON'T HAVE TO OR AN APARTMENT OWNER, IT'S NOT TWO YEARS NOW YOU ACTUALLY REDUCE THAT DOWN TO ONE YEAR.
AND SO I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY A, A GOOD THING FOR BOTH THE HOMEOWNERS AND APARTMENT OWNERS AS WELL.
MME. TURNER, I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION ON THIS.
THIS IS THOMAS RANKS, UM, MADAM CHAIR MOTION.
UM, AND DANNY ALMAN, JUMP IN IF I BOTCH THIS MOTION.
MOTION IS TO APPROVE 1 0 7 0.1 S-P-S-A-P-M-C AND CHANGE THE SECOND ANNIVERSARY, UM, LANGUAGE TO ONE YEAR TO MATCH THE STATE LANGUAGE.
SECOND, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A DENY THE PROPOSED CHANGES.
AND THEN MAYBE A SECOND MOTION TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE.
SO WE ARE GOING TO DENY THE 2024 IPMC AND ANOTHER CHANGE THIS.
BUT LET, LET'S SHOW, UH, MAKE IT
I'M ON A MOTION THAT ON ITEM NUMBER 47 THAT WE APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO DENY THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.
WHEN WE CAN, IN, IN ADDITION, LET'S GO, UH, WE'RE GONNA CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FROM TWO YEARS TO ONE YEAR.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE LANGUAGE WILL BE KEPT AND WE'LL BE ADDING FIRST AND STRIKING ON SECOND, CORRECT? YES.
YES, WE ARE READY FOR THE NEXT ITEM.
WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT 50 AND 51.
UH, THIS IS THE TABLED ITEM AS WELL.
IT'S AN EXTERNAL PROPOSED AMENDMENT, UH, TO SECTION 1 0 7 0.3, METHOD OF SERVICE.
UH, AS YOU RECALL THE CONVERSATION WE HAD, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, STRIKING OUT, UM, SUBSECTION ONE AND, UH, ADDING SOME LANGUAGE IN SUBSECTION THREE BY EITHER OR PERSONALLY, UH, DELIVERED.
UH, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE DENY THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND, UM, KEEP THE LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN, UH, UNDER THE S-A-P-M-C WHERE A PERSON DELIVERS REQUIRED
[00:30:03]
COMMENT, PLEASE.UM, YOU KNOW, I I I, I FRANKLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S POSITION ON THIS, WHY WE WOULD BE OPPOSED TO LEAVING DELIVERED PERSONALLY AS A STANDALONE OPTION.
UM, IT'S NOT EVEN HOW YOU OPERATE.
UM, IT, AND, AND FRANKLY, HAVING BEEN IN THE ROOM DURING THE PROPERTY INSPECTION ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED A GREAT DEAL ABOUT RAISING THE STAKES OF THE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PROCESS, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE PROGRAM AND 'CAUSE OF THE STAKES INVOLVED.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND THIS WAS A BIG PART OF IT WAS THE NOTICE THING.
AND TO NOT BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN REASONABLE CHANGES TO THAT, I THINK IS KIND OF A, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S KIND OF A BETRAYAL OF WHAT WE, WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THAT ROOM.
UM, BUT BEYOND THAT, I JUST, I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.
THIS IS HOW YOU OPERATE, RIGHT? YOU, YOU ALWAYS EMAIL IT, YOU, YOU ALWAYS MAIL IT OUT ANYWAY.
SO WHY THE OPPOSITION TO ELIMINATING DELIVER PERSONALLY AS A STANDALONE OPTION AND, AND ADDING IT TO THE, TO THE MAIL OPTION.
AND THEN I JUST THINK OUT OF FAIRNESS, YOU THEY'RE DELIVERING IT IN A LOT OF TIMES THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF SAID, DELIVER PERSONALLY TO, YOU KNOW, THE AGENT OF THE OWNER, THAT WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THAT IS A RESPONSIBLE PARTY.
BUT A LOT OF TIMES THEY HAND IT TO A TEMP EMPLOYEE, THEY HAND IT TO A MAINTENANCE PERSON THAT, THAT MAY BE ON THE PROPERTY.
THOSE AREN'T PEOPLE OF RESPONSIBILITY.
YOU WOULD NEVER GET AWAY WITH SERVICE OF A LAWSUIT OR ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT BY SERVICE TO, YOU KNOW, SOME JANITOR IN, IN THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE BUILDING.
SO IF THE CITY'S GETTING SUED, AND I WALKED IN AND I SAID, WE'RE DELIVERING IT TO, YOU KNOW, A JANITOR IN THE BUILDING, THAT WOULD NOT FLY.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DELIVER IT TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
THERE'S OFFICIAL PEOPLE THAT ARE REGISTERED AGENTS.
AND SO PART OF THE, THE THOUGHT PROCESS HERE WAS IS IF YOU ALWAYS MAIL IT BY FIRST CLASS MAIL AND THEN EITHER DELIVER IT, YOU KNOW, POST IT ON THE BUILDING AND POST IT, OR GIVE IT PERSONALLY, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS ALWAYS GETTING NOTIFIED.
AND A LOT OF TIMES NOW THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT GETTING NOTIFIED, AND THEN YOU END UP WITH A CITATION AND EVERYBODY'S CHASING DOWN WHAT HAPPENED.
SO WE JUST THINK THAT'S AN ABUNDANCE OF FAIRNESS.
SO IT THEORETICALLY, THE, THE OFFICER COULD COME OUT AND HAND A TENANT OF THE PROPERTY.
THE, THE NOTICE THAT WOULD BE IT'S PERSONALLY DELIVERED TO SOMEBODY LIVING IN THE HOUSE, BUT THEN THE OWNER HAS NO CLUE AND THEN HAS A CITATION, A RECOMMENDATION.
A RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE KIND OF AS A COMPROMISE TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS DELIVERED PERSONALLY TO OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE.
AND WHO WOULD THAT BE IF IN PRACTICAL PURPOSES, WHO IS THAT? THE REGISTERED AGENT BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, OR SOMEBODY THAT'S LISTED AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? IT CANNOT JUST BE A PAID STAFF PERSON, YOU KNOW? WELL, IF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE, IT WOULD NOT BE THE REGISTERED AGENT.
IT COULD BE A REGISTERED AGENT REPRESENTATIVE IS BROADER.
SO IT WOULD ENCOMPASS MORE PEOPLE SUCH AS A, IT WOULD INCLUDE THE TENANT BECAUSE THE OWNER HAS PLACED A TENANT IN.
AND SO IT WOULD BE OWNER OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE.
BUT IF WE ADD IN THE LANGUAGE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE, THEN IT COULD BE A POLICY WHERE THE OWNERS PROVIDE THE PEOPLE WHO SHOULD BE RECEIVING THE NOTICES.
AND THAT AT LEAST PROVIDES INFORMATION TO CODE ENFORCEMENT AS TO, UH, WHO IS ACCEPTABLE.
THE, IT, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT WITH THE SERVICE TO A JANITOR THAT WITH THE CITY, IT'S IN OUR CHARTER THAT YOU HAVE TO SERVE THE CLERK OR THE MAYOR OR THE CITY MANAGER.
BUT ACTUALLY, UH, WHEN I'M FILING A LAWSUIT, AND IF IT'S AGAINST, I KNOW, UM, A BUSINESS, UH, LET'S SAY, UH, A TOPLESS CLUB FOR EXAMPLE, UH, I CAN SERVE ANYBODY WHO ACCEPTS SERVICE.
SO IF THE RECEPTIONIST AT THE FRONT ACCEPTS THE DOCUMENT THAT'S ACCEPTING SERVICE.
SO I WOULD SEPARATE THE TWO BECAUSE THE CITY
[00:35:01]
SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES IN OUR CHARTER THE CLERK TO CITY MANAGER OR THE MAYOR.BUT IN TYPICAL LAWSUITS, IT'S WHOEVER DOES ACCEPT IT, THEY'VE ACCEPTED SERVICE.
SO SOMEBODY THAT IS NOT RELATED TO THE OWNER AT ALL, THE TENANT, THE, THE, UH, A KID THAT IS AT THE HOUSE BABYSITTING COULD ACCEPT SERVICE AND THE OWNER DOESN'T KNOW.
I MEAN, THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION LAST TIME, SIR.
BUT WHEN IN REALITY ARE YOU ACTUALLY GONNA GET A PROPERTY OWNER OR WHOEVER'S ON RECORD AT BA, BASICALLY THEY MAIL ALL THESE PROPERTIES ARE RUN BY OTHER, THEY MAIL IT TO THE ADDRESS AT BA, WHICH IS WHAT THE STATE LAW SAYS.
BUT THEY'RE SAYING ON HERE, MAILING AND PERSONALLY DELIVERED.
AND THE CITY'S RECOMMENDING NOT TO DO THAT, NOT TO DO THAT.
THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING THAT THEY CAN JUST HAND A NOTICE TO THE TENANT IN THE HOUSE, AND THAT IS NOTICE DELIVERED.
AND THAT TO ME IS, IS JUST NOT GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.
SORRY, JUST YEAH, JUST REAL QUICK.
WHEN WE, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME WE TABLED IT, WE SAID, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LIKE AS A DIRECTION, WE WANTED SOME KIND OF A MAIL OPTION, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
UM, SO IS THAT, WE'RE JUST, Y'ALL ARE STILL SITTING WITH THE DENIAL FROM PREVIOUSLY WHEN, BEFORE WE EVEN KIND OF TALKED ABOUT THIS.
SO JUST A KIND OF CLARIFICATION ON THIS.
WE AS THE, AS THE TASK FORCE KIND OF THOUGHT THAT THE, THE BEST WAY, WELL, NOT KIND OF THE BEST WAY WOULD BE MALE AND, UM, LANGUAGE IN WHICH IS WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS.
THE LANGUAGE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN SAYS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
SO LET ME, LET ME JUMP IN A COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE IS WE DON'T DELIVER ANY NOTICES OR ANYTHING TO MINORS.
SO KID, YEAH, WE NEVER DO THAT.
THE SECOND THING IS, IF THE NOTICE NEEDS TO GO TO THE OWNER, OR I, I CALL IT THE LANDLORD.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT APARTMENTS FOR EXAMPLE, WE DO NOT GIVE THE NOTICE TO THE TENANT.
IF WE KNOW THE TENANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, WE GIVE THAT NOTICE TO THE TENANT.
BUT IF IT'S THE LANDLORD, WE GO TO THE OFFICE, OR AGAIN, IF THEY HIRED A MAINTENANCE PERSON TO US, HE'S REPRESENTING THEM.
AND TO TELL ME THAT IF I GAVE IT TO THE, UH, MAINTENANCE PERSON, IT DOESN'T GET TO THEM.
THAT'S REALLY NOT OUR PROBLEM.
YOU NEED TO TRAIN YOUR TEAM IS IF YOU DON'T WANT THEM TO ACCEPT THINGS LIKE THAT, THEY SHOULD SAY, I, I DON'T WANNA ACCEPT IT.
BUT IF THEY WORK FOR YOU, THEY ARE REPRESENTING YOU ONE WAY OR OR THE OTHER.
THE SECOND THING TODAY, WE DO DELIVER IN PERSON AND WE TRY AGAIN, I DON'T WANNA SAY A HUNDRED PERCENT, WE DO MAIL THE NOTICES.
IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE MINUTE WE DELIVER IT, AND PERSONALLY THAT IS WHAT THE STATE, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE STATE HERE, IT SAYS YOU MUST DELIVER IT IN PERSON.
SO IF WE MOVE IT TO THE, THE OPTION HERE IS SAYING WE MAIL IT AND IF, AND OR ACTUALLY GIVE IT, UH, DELIVER IT IN PERSON, WHICH THAT'S TOTALLY AGAINST THE STATE.
THE STATE SAYS YOU MUST DELIVER IT IN PERSON.
IF YOU CAN'T, THEN YOU DO THE NEXT OPTION.
I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT WE DISCUSSED AND WHY WE TABLED IT WAS ADDING DELIVERED PERSONALLY AND EITHER TWO OR THREE.
BUT THAT'S WHAT WE SAID IS WE TABLED IT TO DO SOME RESEARCH.
SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT IT, WE CANNOT GO WITH OPTION THREE.
I CAN'T REMOVE ONE AND DO OPTION THREE.
'CAUSE THE STATE'S SAYING I HAVE TO, I MUST, WE WERE ASKING TO HAVE, HOLD ON A SECOND.
WE WERE ASKING TO HAVE NUMBER ONE DELIVERED PERSONALLY.
AND I DO AGREE WITH OWNER, OWNER REPRESENTATIVE, AND EITHER NUMBER TWO OR THREE.
SO THE PROBLEM THERE IS TWO THINGS.
NUMBER ONE IS YOU ARE ADDING BURDEN TO THE CITY TO MAKE SURE WE ARE GONNA SPEND THE MONEY TO DO THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME.
NUMBER TWO, I KNOW WE ARE DOING IT NOW OR WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO DO IT ALL THE TIME, BUT IF WE SAY, AND, AND FOR, FOR WHATEVER REASON THAT MAIL DOESN'T GET DELIVERED, THE POSTAL OFFICE DROPS IT OR SOMETHING HAPPENS, THEN WHEN WE GO TO COURT IMMEDIATELY THEY CAN'T SAY, OH, I NEVER RECEIVED, WELL, AGAIN, THE STATE DOESN'T SAY I HAVE TO MAIL IT.
THE STATE SAYS I HAVE TO DELIVER IT IN PERSON.
AND IF AGAIN, A REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICALLY THERE AND WE HAND IT TO THEM, WE MET THE STATE LAW BY SAYING I DELIVERED IT TO THE OWNER OR OWNER REP.
BASICALLY, I, I DON'T LIKE THE STRAW MAN OF, OF THE POSTAL SERVICE NOT DELIVERING IT.
'CAUSE THAT'S A, A KNOWN CONTRACT DELIVERY METHOD.
[00:40:01]
WE USED IT FOR MAILING CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS IN, IN THE AIR FORCE.SO, UM, BUT I, I THINK HERE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AT IS IN MY MIND IS, IS I'VE GOT A, A HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET.
PEOPLE LIVE IN IT, THEY PAY RENT.
THEY MORE THAN LIKELY DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT BECAUSE THEY CAN MOVE IN AND OUT AT, AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
SO THE PERSON WHO OWNS THAT HOUSE, I KNOW THEM 'CAUSE THEY LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IF YOU MAILED IT TO THE, THE PEOPLE THAT PAY THE TAXES, THE NOTICE GETS TO THEIR HOU GETS TO THEM.
IF YOU DELIVER IT TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE HOUSE, THE NOTICE PROBABLY DOESN'T GET TO THEM.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S JUST LIKE A HOUSE.
I, I LIKE, I I APPRECIATE THAT THE, THE APARTMENT ASSOCIATIONS HERE AND YOU KNOW, MULTI-TENANT UNITS.
BUT IN MY MIND I'M THINKING, YOU KNOW, DUPLEX SINGLE HOUSE PEOPLE ARE RENTING IT BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF WHAT'S IN MOST OF THE CITY.
WE DON'T HAVE A TON OF APARTMENT COMPLEXES ALL OVER THE CITY.
SO I WANT THAT PERSON THAT LIVE, THAT OWNS THAT HOUSE REPAIRS IT FREQUENTLY IS PROVIDING A LOW INCOME RENT FOR PEOPLE.
UH, I WANT THEM TO GET A, A MAILED NOTICE.
AND, AND I GET THAT IT'S EXPENSIVE.
THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF, WE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT, WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE VALUE WISE, I MEAN WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T PUT A BURDEN OF A TASK FORCE.
WE CAN'T PUT A BURDEN ON THE CITY TO SAY, OH, BY THE WAY, SPEND $10 MILLION A YEAR ON POSTAGE FEES.
YOU KNOW, Y'ALL NEED TO GO AHEAD AND SUPPLEMENT THE US POSTAL SERVICE, UH, IN PERPETUITY.
NO, THAT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING FOR.
BUT WE, WE JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MUCH WOULD THIS COST AND, UM, YOU KNOW, BENEFITING THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE HOUSE.
AND, AND, AND I'M SORRY, BUT THE 50 CENT STAMP IS CHEAPER THAN THE, AND THE CODE OFFICERS PAY THEIR GAS THEIR TIME.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST LOGICALLY SPEAKING THAT I'M GONNA MAKE MADAM CHAIRMAN, I'M GONNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS SPECIFIC ONE, UM, THE CITY HAS TIME TO DO SOME RESEARCH AND THINK MORE OF IT.
AND THIS SPECIFIC ONE GETS PUSHED TO THE ENTIRE BOARD MEETING.
ARE WE, I I, I BELIEVE AT THE LAST MEETING WE ASKED ABOUT PUSHING ITEMS TO THE FULL BOARD AND THEY SAID NO, THAT THE COMMITTEE HAD TO CLOSE THEM OUT.
SAVITA, WHICH LAW SAYS THAT? CAN WE JUST MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE? UH, THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A LAW THAT SAYS THAT IT'S, UM, WHAT IS EXPECTED WHEN THIS TASK FORCE WAS CREATED THAT THIS TASK FORCE WOULD PROVIDE THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD, TO THE FULL BOARD, AND THEN THE FULL BOARD MAKES THE FINAL DECISION.
AND SO THE, IT'S THE EXPECTATION OF A TASK FORCE IS TO PROVIDE THE RECOMMENDATION.
SO COULD TRY GETTING OUT OF IT, I THINK NO, NO.
I THINK WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THOUGH, RIGHT? I MEAN WE DO, BUT THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING.
THE, THE QUESTION HERE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION, UM, AND THIS MOTION CAN BE VOTED ON AND IF IT FAILS, THEN A NEW MOTION CAN BE MADE ON.
UM, MY MOTION IS TO KEEP, UH, THE S-A-P-M-C AS IS AND TO DENY THE PROPOSED CHANGES.
YEAH, I, I, I JUST, WE'VE ASKED THESE QUESTIONS BEFORE AND I, I THINK THAT WE REALLY HAD, UH, KIND OF GIVEN A GO DO ON THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF THE, THE DELIVERY METHOD AND ALL THAT.
SO I THINK THAT WE, WE REALLY NEEDED SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE, THE REPEAT.
UM, BECAUSE IT, THIS DOES SEEM LOGICAL, UH, TO, TO MAIL AND, UH, SO Y'ALL CAN VOTE ON IT.
BUT LIKE TO SAY, JUST A QUICK QUESTION, MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS THE MOTION WAS TO HAVE IT MAILED AND PERSONALLY, NO, JUST MAILED, KEEP IT, KEEP THE S-A-P-M-C AS IS AND KEEP WHAT THE CITY IS DOING THE SAME.
SO RIGHT NOW THEY ARE DOING IT, CORRECT ME, UM, IF I'M WRONG, THEY'RE, I DON'T KNOW.
SO TODAY WE ARE FOLLOWING THE STATE LAW WHERE IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO PERSONALLY DELIVER IT.
IF YOU CANNOT, LET'S SAY WE GO TO A LOCATION AND NOBODY'S THERE, THEN WE POST IT AT THE DOOR AND WE MAIL IT.
NOW, AGAIN, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO MAIL EVERY SINGLE TIME, BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
BUT WE ATTEMPT TO DO THAT TODAY.
AND THE REASON WHY I'M SAYING IF WE CHANGE THIS TO SAY, AND NOW IT BECOMES A REQUIREMENT, AND IF YOU DON'T DELIVER IN PERSON AND IN THE MAIL, TECHNICALLY THAT NOTICE ISN'T INVALID AND THAT CASE GOES AWAY AND
[00:45:01]
THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM IS.YEAH, THAT'S, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
UM, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
UH OH, LET'S DO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS.
MOTION PASSES WITH THE VOTE OF FOUR TO TWO AND THAT'S TO KEEP THE S-A-P-M-C AS WRITTEN.
AND PLEASE REMEMBER, IT'S GOING TO THE FULL BOARD AND THEN IT'S GOING TO PCDC.
WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE HER CASE POLITICALLY, JUST LIKE THE WAY YOU OPERATE IS THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DID.
LIKE, THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL BURDEN.
AND THE IDEA THAT, UM, IT'S ON ME TO, TO TRAIN MY PORTER.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND IF, AND IF THE PORTER WHO'S RUNNING AROUND DOING A MILLION THINGS WITH THE MAINTENANCE GUY GETS A NOTICE AND IT'S ON US.
I MEAN, I, I JUST THINK THAT'S A COMPLETE ABDICATION OF, OF, UM, I MEAN THERE IS, THERE SHOULD BE A BURDEN ON THE CITY.
AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING THE PAPER AND I DON'T KNOW, I'M GONNA, REAL QUICK, I'M GONNA ANSWER THIS.
SO THE COMPANY I WORKED FOR PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD 217 TECHS THAT WERE IN 17 STATES, RIGHT? WE UNDERNEATH STATE LAWS LICENSING.
OKAY? SO IF WE CAN GET 217 TECHNICIANS, HPC AND REFRIGERATION TO MAKE SURE AND LET US KNOW WHEN A STATE OF THERE, I THINK WE CAN TRAIN PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, TO DO THEIR JOB.
AND IF THEY GET SOMETHING FROM A CITY OR THEY GET SOMETHING FROM A STATE OFFICIAL, THEY, THEY TURN IT UP.
BUT ONE THING I WANNA MAKE SURE IS I'M NOT GONNA ALLOW THIS BOARD TO ENTERTAIN THE CITY OFFICIALS BEING ATTACKED CONSTANTLY.
AND THAT'S THE WAY I'M PERCEIVING IT.
THAT MAY NOT BE THE WAY YOU ARE, RIGHT? SO MADAM CHAIR, I WANT TO REMIND US THAT WE PUBLIC NEEDS TO SPEAK WHEN IT IS PUBLIC'S TIME AND THE ACCUSING AND GOING AFTER THE STAFF NEEDS TO, UH, HALT
WE THE FRIENDLY, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FRIENDLY HERE.
UM, I DO AGREE ON, UH, THE EMPLOYEE PART.
UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE WORKED IN MANAGEMENT MANY, MANY TIMES AND OUR PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS TOLD, YOU CAN'T TALK TO THE PRESS.
YOU CAN'T ACCEPT ANY, ANY TYPE OF NOTICES FOR ANYTHING.
IF THERE'S AN INSPECTOR HERE, YOU NEED TO CONTACT YOUR MANAGER.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S SIMPLE TRAINING AT THE BEGINNING OF A JOB.
BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT WHEN IT'S A TENANT THAT IS GETTING THAT NOTICE, OR WHEN IT'S A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEBODY ELSE THAT IS NOT THE OWNER, IT DOES BECAUSE BECOME A PROBLEM.
SO I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT HERE.
I YOU, YOU GUYS KNOW, PUBLIC COMMENT IS SO IMPORTANT TO ME.
I'M GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO TALK, EVEN IF IT, IT'S JUST A LITTLE THING.
BUT PLEASE ALSO REMEMBER, BE RESPECTFUL.
IS THERE, WAS THAT ALL THE ITEMS MADAM CHAIR? YES, THAT WAS THE ITEMS. UM, THAT WAS
WE'VE WENT OVER ALL A HUNDRED, UM, ITEMS, SO, YAY.
CAN WE NOT MAKE A FEW MORE UP REAL QUICK? YOU WANNA MAKE A FEW MORE UP
UH, WE WILL CONTINUE ANY TYPE OF, UH, CON CONVERSATION AT FULL BOARD WHERE I'M NO LONGER THE CHAIR.
SO THANK YOU ALL FOR PUTTING UP WITH ME AS CHAIR AND UM, IT IS 9 52 AND WE'RE DONE.