Good morning today, and uh Wednesday or sorry, Monday, July 27th at nine o'clock.

We'll go ahead and call the meeting to order.

Please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Is there a motion and a second to accept the meeting minutes from the previous meeting?

Motion to accept.

Second.

Sorry, uh Miss Doty, second.

Uh all in fact uh ready for a vote.

This is a motion to accept the meetings from uh the minutes from the previous meeting.

Mr.

Castles?

Aye.

Miss Lane?

Yes, Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black?

Yes.

Mr.

Jawale?

Yes.

Miss Dottie?

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries seven zero.

Ms.

Borders, will you please present the evidentiary packet?

Is there a motion and a second to accept the evidentiary packet?

I move to accept.

Second.

Second.

Taken by Mr.

Lou.

Ready for a vote?

This is a motion to accept the evidentiary packet, Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Jawale.

Yes.

Miss Dotty.

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries seven zero.

Is there going to be a translator needed today?

Yes, we do have a translator today.

They were or were they?

Uh they're they're being walked in right now.

Okay.

I'll go back and uh do ours after.

Uh will those who intend to give testimony before commission today, please rise, raise your right hand and take the oath of truth.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you give today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Thank you.

You may be seated.

I'll go ahead and swear in the translator.

Good morning.

Do you solemnly swear or affirm the translation you give today will be true and accurate to the best of your ability?

Yes.

Thank you.

Maybe see it.

Are there any cases to be withdrawn today?

Yes.

We have new case residential HS 2684.

5721 Mirror Ridge Drive, primary structure.

HS 2689 2008 Langston Street, primary structure.

HS 2690, 2008, Langston Street, primary structure.

Uh administrative civil penalty case residential ACP 2681 4940 Curzon Avenue.

ACP 2684, 4200 South Hughes Avenue.

ACP 2687, 3215, Freddy Street.

Do we have a motion and a second to uh withdraw those cases?

Motion to withdraw.

Second.

Second by Miss Lane.

Ready for a vote.

This is a motion to withdraw those cases.

Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Jawale.

Yes.

Ms.

Dottie.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries 7-0.

Um if you want to call the first case.

As a matter of information, please know that our commission members are not city employees but citizens of Fort Worth who are appointed by the city council to serve on this board.

Each member is highly qualified and capable of understanding the problems associated with repairing or demolishing a structure.

The commission members involved in our today's session are David Castles, Jonathan Leiden, Mohanjiwale, Stephanie Dyke, Jose Juarez, Stephanie Thompson, Janet Lane, Brian Black, Chairman, Melandi Dotti, James Walker, Alalu, Vice Chairman.

Please note for the record that uh Stephanie Dyke, Jose Juarez, Stephanie Thompson, and James Walker are absent.

The city employees involved in today's proceedings are Deputy Code Compliance Director Shannon Elders, Superintendents, Oscar Reyes and Ty Kitchens, Supervisors Kenneth Young and Jason Pittman, Executive Secretary, Jerry Smith, Title Investigator Investigator, Sit Lali Vasquez, Senior Administrative Administrative Assistant, Stephanie Gonzalez, Assistant City Attorney, Elizabeth Borders, Assistant City Attorney Doreen Walters, and Code Compliance Officers will assist lien holders, owners, and/or citizens who wish to speak at today's meeting.

They are your liaison with the commission, and they are located at a table just outside council chambers.

Marlise de la Garza is the interpreter for today's meeting.

The City of Fort Worth, Department of Code Compliance has requested a public hearing for this commission to determine whether each structure on the agenda is substandard and/or hazardous to determine whether the owners of the properties on the agenda have allowed the accumulation of debris in violation of the code of City of Fort Worth and issue orders directing the owners of the properties to correct these conditions within a specified time frame.

Please note the commission cannot make determinations as to the highest and best use of land, nor can the commission determine whether the existing land use is compatible with adjacent neighborhoods.

These issues should be addressed with the planning and zoning commissions.

The commission can only consider evidence presented for its review.

If you are requesting more than 90 days to comply with an order, you should present a written action plan with specific timelines.

A ruling will be made based upon the preponderance of evidence presented by the owners, lienholders, mortgagees, or duly authorized representatives having power of attorney, interested parties, interested groups, and city staff.

The commission will break for a work session at approximately noon.

The following guidelines apply for presentations before the commission.

Any member of the public who addresses the building standards commission through an interpreter shall be given at least twice the amount of time as a member of the public who does not require the assistance of an interpreter.

This is to ensure that non-English speakers receive the same opportunity to address the commission.

City staff will present their case.

The owners' lienholders and or mortgage of record will have the opportunity to cross-examine city staff.

The owners' lienholders andor mortgages of record will present their case.

City staff will have the opportunity to cross-examine the owners' lienholders and or mortgages of record.

Interested parties will be given three minutes to present evidence or testimony about the case being presented before the commission.

Groups of five or more individuals are given seven minutes to present evidence or testimony about the case being presented before the commission.

The city staff will be allowed to present rebuttal testimony.

The owners, lienholders and/or mortgages of record will be allowed to cross-examine city staff.

The owners, lienholders and or mortgages of record will be allowed to present rebuttal testimony.

City staff will be allowed to cross-examine the owners' lienholders and/or mortgages of record.

The commissioners may ask questions and request further evidence for clarification as they deem appropriate.

If you intend to participate in this hearing, please complete an appearance form and submit it to city staff.

Again, the officers at the table just outside council chambers can help you with that form.

To request more time to comply with the commission's order or to request a reduction in the amount of civil penalties, the owner, lienholder, or duly authorized representative may request an amendment to the building standards commission order.

This request must be submitted to the executive secretary of the building standards commission before said order expires or within 30 days of the effective date of a civil penalty order.

This request may be made one time only.

If you disagree with the order of this commission, you have the right to appeal to the Tarrant County District Court.

This appeal must be filed within 30 days of the mailing date of the order.

Please turn off or silence all electronic devices.

If you are wearing a hat, please remove it when approaching the podium to speak.

Speak, please make sure to adjust the microphones to your height so your testimony can be heard.

First case we're calling today, HS 2645 amendment, new case commercial 3201 East Lancaster Avenue.

Primary and five accessory structures, aka being all of lot five and a portion of lot six, block three, tandy addition to the city of Fort Worth, as recorded in volume three eighty-eight, page thirty-one, Terrant County Platte Records.

The owner is RMP Hospitality LLC.

There are no lienholders, and we have uh appearance forms.

Appearance forms from uh Thomas Hamilton, sheetle Patel, Mike Phipps, Juan Fan, Daniel Haas, Carol Peters, and we have uh also approximately seven statements from interested parties included in the evidence packet.

Uh Mr.

Patel, good morning.

Good morning.

Um if you'll go ahead and state your name and city of residence.

Uh my name is Shetl Patel, uh, City of Resident Is Irving, Texas.

All right.

Um, so this is an amendment case, so you get to go present first today.

So let uh if you'll let me know uh what it is you want us to know about this case and what you're asking for.

Absolutely.

Can we actually uh uh pull up a PowerPoint presentation uh on the slides?

I do have physical.

Okay.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today while we wait for the presentation.

I just have a quick question.

We have a twenty-fifth on the list, and how did we move to the first one?

I'm expecting an attorney to be here uh for the case, and he's running a little late, but uh according to the docket, we were the second last on the case.

When is he gonna be here?

Uh he should be here in next hour.

We can we can table it till he gets here if you like, and uh that way they can work on trying to get this downloaded as well.

Perfect.

That would be nice.

Thank you so much.

Good Jerry.

I don't know if we heard any of that.

Did you hear that, Jerry?

Are we calling the next case?

Yes, we'll do it.

Can y'all still work on downloading that while we're working?

Okay, and then when his attorney gets here, we'll call that case since it was pulled up.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Thank you.

Next case, new case residential HS twenty six.

Hold on.

I'm sorry, let us officially table that one since you called it.

Okay.

Do we have a motion to table it?

Motion to table.

Oh sorry, who did that?

Sorry.

Motion.

All right, Mr.

Castles and second by Miss Dyke.

Um all in favor?

I'm sorry.

Hi.

Ready for a vote.

Sorry, I can't do that.

This is a motion to table.

Uh HS 2645 3211 East Lancaster.

Uh Mr.

Castles.

Hi.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Hi.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Jawale.

Yes.

Miss Dottie.

Hi.

Miss Dyke.

Hi.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

A motion carries eight zero.

All right, ready for the next case.

Next case, new case residential HS 2681, 5104 Norma Street, aka lot B, a revision of the North 291 feet of lot 16, block 1, Eastland first uh filing, an addition to the city of Fort Worth, Terrant County, Texas, according to the plot uh thereof recorded in volume 388-H, page 167 of the plat records of Terrant County, Texas.

Owner is David Bayer, lean holder is the United States of America.

We have an appearance form from David Baer.

Mr.

Bear, if you want to have a seat, the city will go first on these cases and then we'll call you up.

Is the city ready?

Yes, thank you.

The city would call Officer William Lowry to present the case.

Good morning, Commissioners.

This case originated March 10th, 2026.

It was initiated by Officer William Laurie.

Fire date, March 9, 2026.

Notices March 10th, 2026, and May 29th, 2026.

No permits on file.

Vacant and secured by owner.

Administrative search warrant was executed on July 15th, 2026.

Notice to appear at today's hearing was mailed and posted on the property on July 15th, 2026.

The primary structure is currently in a substandard and hazardous condition due to breaches on the roof with missing and damaged shingles and decking.

Rear exterior wall is leaning towards the interior of the structure.

Breached and missing siding, exposing the foundation to outside elements and multiple vectors.

Holes in the ceiling with hanging insulation, holes on interior walls with exposed wall studs with multiple cracks throughout.

Missing electrical outlet and outlet covers with exposed wiring.

Broken windows with glass shards remaining.

Interior of the structure is exposed to the outside elements, creating a host of vectors.

Staff recommends that the building standards commission declare the structure to be substandard and hazardous.

That the owner be given 30 days to repair or demolish the structure.

If the owner does not comply with said order, authorize the city to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

This concludes my testimony.

Thank you.

Any questions from commissioners?

All right, is the city ready?

The owner, sorry.

Threw me off on the other one.

Mr.

Uh Mr.

Bayer.

If you'll uh state your name and city of residence.

David Bayer, Cleburne, Texas.

All right.

Did you have any questions of the code officer?

I do not.

Okay.

Um what would you like us to know about this property and your plans with it?

Uh it started four years ago.

I guess we got separated.

And so I moved away.

I let my wife and kids live there.

And um since I started the divorce, that was final in April.

And I found out about this on March 28th when I drove by the house.

One of the neighbor called me and said it was it looked the way it did.

So it got cleaned up actually April the 1st.

And so I've been paying the yard guy to go over there and take care of it.

And I just need to get it cleaned up.

This house has been in the family for over 50 years.

And with her living there the past four years, this is what it's turned out to be.

So I just need I'd like time to get it fixed up so I can keep it.

What's your so your plans is to fix it up or yeah, it needs a new roof, and obviously the siding and everything around it.

I need to go through there and clean it up.

How long are you asking?

At least 90 days to get everything picked up and cleaned up.

Have you had anyone look at it to see if it can be repaired with the structurally or not yet?

Okay.

As far as like a licensed uh engineer or just to have an idea, you know, because we're today we're looking to call it substandard and hazardous.

And so I didn't know if you've looked on the like uh I think you've cleaned up the outside, but on the inside, structurally, I didn't know if you'd had anybody look at it.

No, that's what I do is build and remodel, and um I was gonna get it all cleaned up myself.

Okay.

You have the funds to get it done.

I'm working on that, yes.

Okay.

Any questions from commissioners?

The city have any questions.

Just to clarify, uh you haven't had any engineers look at it structurally.

No.

Um, have you pulled any permits?

No, I haven't pulled any permits or done anything yet, except clean it up and take pictures.

Nothing further, thank you.

Are you ready to close?

Yes.

The city would request that the structures be declared substandard and hazardous.

The city would further request that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days, and if the owner fails to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days, that the city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

All right, so this you've heard the city, they wanted 30 days, and I think you said you're asking for 90.

Correct.

Can we split it at 60?

Uh, that's what we're here today.

So all right.

Um, at this time, we will close the public portion of the hearing and open it up for a motion, Mr.

Castles.

I move that the structure be declared substandard and hazardous.

I second.

Second.

I have a second by Miss Lane.

Ready for a vote.

This is a motion to declare the primary structure substandard and hazardous, Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Jawale.

Yes.

Miss Dottie.

Aye.

Miss Dyke.

Mr.

Alu.

Aye.

Motion carries eight zero.

I move that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 60 days.

And if the owner fails to repair or demolish the structure within 60 days, that city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and leave all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

Second.

Second by Miss Lane.

Any discussion?

Ready for a vote.

This is a motion to repair or demolish the primary structure within 60 days.

Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Jawale.

Yes.

Miss Stottie.

Aye.

Miss Dyke.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries eight zero.

Uh, this commission has declared the structure to be substandard and hazardous and given the owner 60 days to repair or demolish.

Owners, leanholders, mortgages of record have the right to request an amendment within 60 days from the date of this order.

Owner, leanholder, mortgage of record have the right to file an appeal to the Tarrant County District Court within 30 days of the date the city mails a copy of our order.

Commission also gives notice that failure on the part of the owner to comply with today's order may result in scheduling and conducting of a civil penalty hearing to determine the amount the penalty be paid.

Please stay in touch with the code officer and thanks for coming today.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Next case.

Next case, new case residential HS 2685, 1655, Robinwood Drive, primary structure, aka lot 17, block 37, Sylvan Heights, an addition to the city of Fort Worth, Terrant County, Texas, according to the plot recorded in volume 1764, page 289, deed records of Terrant County, Texas.

Owner is MGM directed IRA Holdings, LLC.

There are no lien holders, and we have an appearance form from uh Matt Matthew Daniel.

All right.

Let the city go and then we'll call you up.

All right, thank you.

City ready to present.

Yes, thank you.

The city would call Officer Franklin Young to present the case.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Franklin Young.

I'm a CEO forward co-compliance officer with the Building Status Commission.

Building Standards Division.

I'm here to present evidence for 1655 Robinwood Drive.

Case was originated on March 19, 2026 by myself.

Notices were sent out on March 19, 2026.

April 6, 2026.

There are no active permits on file.

The structure is vacant and open.

Administrative search warrant was executed on July 14th of 2026.

Notice to appear at today's hearing was mailed and posted on the property on July 10th, 2026.

The primary structures is currently in a substandard and has its condition due to exterior walls and are deteriorating and rear portion is missing.

Interior walls, a breach, missing drawwall, and show signs of water damage.

Signs of foundational distress causing doors and flooring to be out of plum.

Structure shows signs of biological growth due to water damage.

Flooring is weakened with breaches and covered with debris.

There are other conditions that contribute to the structures being in violation of minimum building standards ordinance, and they can be found on the included structure inspector report.

Officer has spoken with the owner via phone and text messages several times.

Staff recommends that the building status commission declare the structure to be substandard and hazardous, that the owner be given 30 days to repair or demolish the structure.

If the owner does not comply with said order, authorize city staff to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

This concludes my testimony.

Thank you.

Any questions from commissioners?

Mr.

McDaniel.

Good morning.

Phil state your name and city of residence.

Matt McDaniel, Dallas, Texas.

Um and I uh are you uh an officer without the LLC that owns it?

Is that yes?

Okay.

Did you uh uh have any questions of the officer?

No, all right.

What would you like us to know about the property?

Well, we had funds that were allocated to another property in Fort Worth on Cumberland Road, and um everything was going we purchased both properties at the same time, basically, and um we did the renovations on that property, and so we were tied up with those that money, and so now we're concentrating on getting robbed when we done we'd like 90 days to get that done.

Um you're saying 90 days.

I'm sorry, can you pull the microphone up?

Sorry, yeah.

Can we get 90 I'm asking for 90 days?

Okay, and you have the funding now?

Yes.

What about permits?

Uh to my knowledge, I've I'm I'm frankly the funds behind it.

Okay.

My knowledge, I thought we had permits, but I'm seeing that we don't.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions from commissioners?

So do you have any questions?

Yes, thank you.

Um, so do you have any you haven't pulled any permits?

No, ma'am.

It doesn't appear so.

Do you have any timeline for doing so or timeline for renovation?

Um me, I mean worker on it right now, do the renovation.

Okay.

And you know there's significant structural defects.

Have you gotten any engineering reports or opinions?

I'm I'm told there's nothing significant enough to hold us from doing the rehab on the property.

Okay.

Thank you.

Nothing further.

Are the city ready to close?

Yes.

The city requests that the structure be declared substandard and hazardous.

The city further requests that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days.

And if the owner fails to repair, demolish the structure within 30 days, that the city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

All right, so the city's asked for 30 days, and I think you've asked for 90.

Anything else you care to add today?

No, I just really appreciate your consideration because I'd be we it was just a matter of funds being allocated to another property.

We had some financing through, and then this one was paid in cash, so we went to that one here in Fort Worth.

We're just gonna make the neighborhood better.

Obviously, make a profit as part of that as well.

Um, but they're on top of it now.

There's workers over there today.

Okay.

And keep in mind whatever the commission uh gives today, there's an amendment process that you could come and ask for additional time showing work that's been done and the amount of time we've done.

So just keep that in mind and talk with your officer depending on what's you know comes of the of the case.

All right, at this time we'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it up for a motion.

I move the structure be declared substandard and hazardous.

Second was that was that you, Mr.

Leiden?

Or who's taking it?

I second.

All right, Mr.

Leiden.

Ready for a vote.

This is a motion to declare the primary structure substandard and hazardous.

Mr.

Castles.

Aye, Miss Lane, Mr.

Leiden, Mr.

Black, yes, Mr.

Yawali.

Yes, Miss Dottie.

Ms.

Dyke, aye, Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries eight zero.

And if the owner fails to repair or demolish the structure within 60 days, that the city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structures, structure, and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

Second by Mr.

Leiden.

Any discussion?

I think 60 days is good to kind of see where they're at and come back for the amendment process to make sure everything's going well.

So I would support that.

Um ready for a vote.

This is a motion to repair or demolish the primary structure within 60 days, Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Jawale.

Yes.

Ms.

Dottie.

Hi.

Miss Dyke.

Aye.

Mr.

Alou.

Aye.

Motion carries eight zero.

This commission has uh declared the structure to be substandard and hazardous and given 60 days to repair or demolish.

Owner, leanholder, mortgagia record have the right to request an amendment within 60 days from the date of this order.

Owner, leanholder, mortgage here record have the right to file an appeal to the Tarrant County District Court within 30 days, the date the city mails a copy of the order.

Commission also gives notice that failure on the part of the owner to comply with today's order may result in the scheduling and conducting of a civil penalty hearing to determine the amount of penalty to be paid.

Keep in mind the amendment process and stay in touch with your code officer on the progress.

Thanks for coming.

Thank you.

Next case.

Next case, new case residential HS 2688 3309 Merrick Street, accessory structure, aka lot D, a revision of block eight of Chamberlain Heights, second filing, an addition to the city of Fort Worth in Terran County, Texas, according to revised plat records in volume 388-J, page 357, deed records of Terran County, Texas.

Owner is Trident Realty Investments REO, LLC.

Lienholder is Rockwell Holdings, LLC.

And we have an appearance form from uh Jeffrey Treadwell.

Mr.

Treadwell.

Oh, if you want to come sit in this first seat, we'll call you up as soon as the city presents.

The city ready?

Yes, thank you.

The city would call Officer Jimmy Brinkley to present the case.

Good morning, Commissioners.

My name is Officer Jimmy Brinkley, City of Ford Co-compliance.

I'm here to present evidence for 3309 Merrick Street.

The case originated February 3, 2026.

This case was initiated by myself, Jimmy Brinkley.

Notices were issued on February 3rd, 2026, March 5th, 2026, March 30th, 2026, and June 4th, 2026.

There are no active permits on file.

The structure is vacant and secured by the owner.

Inspection was conducted on July 14th, 2026.

Permission was given by the property manager.

Notice that today's hearing was mailed and posted on July 13th, 2026.

The accessory structure is currently in substandard and hazardous conditions due to exterior siding exhibits multiple breaches and significant deterioration.

The interior walls have holes and large sections missing throughout.

The roof contains multiple large breaches throughout the structure.

These breaches leave the interior exposed to the outdoor elements and are visible from multiple locations within the property.

The ceiling has collapsed in multiple areas throughout the structure.

There are signs of potential foundation movement and can be seen, including uneven floors, cracks, or other noticeable displacements.

There are other conditions that contribute to the structure of being in violation of minimum building standards and are included on the instruction inspection report.

There are two schools, four churches, and in Lake Como Park within a mile of the property.

I have been in communication with Chaz via text and email about accessing the property.

I've also spoke with Elvi, a paralegal with the ownership group.

From my understanding, they are planning on selling the property.

Staff recommends that building standards commission declare the structure to be substandard and hazardous, and that the owner be given 30 days to repair or demolish the structure.

If the owner does not comply with said order, authorize city staff to enter onto the property and cause demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with demolition against the property.

This concludes my testimony.

Thank you.

So does someone live in the primary structure to your knowledge?

No, sir.

So is it vacant?

Yes, sir.

All right.

Any other questions from commissioners?

All right.

Uh Mr.

Treadwell.

Good morning.

If you'll state your name and city of residence.

Jeffrey Treadwell, and I live at 3313 Merrick Street, Fort Worth, Texas.

All right, so it looks like you're here as an interested party.

What would you like us to know about this property?

I have lived at this.

I have owned this property for 23 years, and I have watched this building disintegrate.

Um the original owners, she passed away.

They sold the property to Mr.

Rockwell.

He was going to flip it, and I asked him, and this was in 24.

I asked him if he was going to demolish this building, and he said yes.

A year later it was in foreclosure, and now it is still there.

I have requested three times that it be um demolished back in July 1st, 25, February 3rd, 26th, and June 6th.

I waited for the sixth month because I knew the procedure, but it has never been torn down.

And I've had possums, raccoons, and snakes, and I firmly believe they were inhabiting this space.

Thank you.

Is there as a primary structure?

Is it that in this shape or is it the primary primary building?

The residence is he rehabbed it.

Um he did a pretty bad job.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for uh coming in today.

Is the city ready to close?

Yes, thank you.

The city would request that the structure be declared substandard and hazardous.

The city further requests that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days, and if the owner fails to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days, that city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

All right, at this time I'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it up for a motion.

I move that the structure be declared substandard and hazardous second.

Taken by Mr.

Gually, uh ready for a vote.

This is a motion to declare the accessory structure substandard and hazardous.

Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Miss Lane?

Hi.

Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Jawale.

Yes.

Miss Dottie.

Aye.

Miss Dyke.

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries eight zero.

I move that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days.

And if the owner fails to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days, so that the city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

Second.

Any discussion?

All right.

Ready for a vote.

This is a motion to repair or demolish the accessory structure within 30 days.

Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Mr.

Jaywali.

Yes.

Mr.

Mr.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Miss Stottie.

Aye.

Miss Dyke.

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries eight zero.

This commission has declared the accessory structure to be substandard and hazardous and given the owner 30 days to repair or demolish.

Owner, leanholder, mortgage of record have the right to request an amendment within 30 days from the date of this order.

Owner, leanholder, or mortgage of record have the right to file an appeal to the Tarrant County District Court within 30 days of the date the city mails a copy of our order.

Commission also gives notice that failure on the part of the owner to comply with today's order may result in the scheduling and conducting of a civil penalty hearing to determine the amount of penalty to be paid.

Thank you for coming in today.

Thank you.

Next case.

Next case, new case residential HS 2692, 3028 South Jones Street, primary structure, aka lot 14, block 19, Ryan and Prue addition to the City of Fort Worth, Terrant County, Texas, according to plot recorded in volume 204, page 34, deed records of Tarrant County, Texas.

Owner Dale Livin Pacheco, lien holder, Roy Pacheco, Francis Zapeta, Southwest Bank.

We have an appearance form from Daniel Paz, an attorney.

An appearance form from Rita Pacheco.

And we have a continuance request included in the evidence packet.

Oh, there you're both here.

Um so on the table first, we have a motion for a continuance.

Um does the city have anything on that.

The city is opposed to this continuance.

The um respondent was properly served, and is the city's prepared to go forward today.

Okay.

So we have uh if everybody's read the notice in there or the uh email in there, uh we need a vote on whether or not to hear the case or grant a continuance.

Council, am I allowed to dress the motion at all?

Yes, go ahead.

Yes, uh Daniel Paws, uh, an attorney here on behalf of David Pacheco, uh, the independent administrator of the estate of Devlin Pacheco.

Uh Mr.

Pacheco's deceased, uh, the named owner on the property.

Uh the reason for this request for continuance is going through the probate estate.

This property is under contract for sale.

Uh, and the new purchaser of the property intends to demolish this property.

Uh so we like the continuance to be granted to allow us time to complete that sale.

And we'd request a continuance of at least 90 days.

Questions or I have a question.

When is the closing date uh on the contract for sale?

Uh the closing date is scheduled for next week, but knowing closing dates sometimes change.

I'm just requesting additional time to allow that uh contingency to be in place.

So you're asking for 90 days with the closing date July 27th.

Uh just in case there's an issue with the closing.

So do we have uh anything on the continuance versus giving or hearing the case and giving an order?

Um that would be this up.

Yeah, I can we discuss I I think 90 days is too much if it's closing next week.

I think pushing it to August meeting may make sense if they can attend that and know they're out of town.

But if their intent is demolish it, we could give an order that was within that time frame to get it demolished.

Yeah, so here today, and then that's what we've got to decide whether we want to or not.

So I move that we grant the request for continuance and hear the hear the case at the date of July 27th, 2026.

That's this meeting.

Oh, you would just deny the continuance request.

Right, I'm just here today.

Yeah, so you deny not.

Yeah, yeah.

I move that we deny the request for a continuance then.

Second by Mr.

Leiden.

Any more discussion on that?

All right, ready for a vote.

This is a motion to deny the continuance request, Mr.

Castles.

Aye, Miss Lane.

Aye, Mr.

Leiden, Mr.

Black, yes, Mr.

Jawale.

Yes, Ms.

Dottie, Miss Dyke.

Aye, Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

All right, that motion.

Uh the motion for continuance uh was uh no eight zero.

So now we'll hear the case.

Um is the city ready to present?

Yes, thank you.

The city would call Officer Carmen Killins to present the case.

My name is Carmen Killins, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Fort Worth, Building Standards Division.

I will present evidence regarding the primary structure located at 3028 South Jones Street.

This case was originated May 18th of 2024.

This case was initiated by Officer Ian Sheedon.

Shadale, I'm sorry.

Notices was sent out May 18th of 2024, August 6th of 2024, June 16th, 2026, and July 13th, 2026.

There are no active permits on file.

The structure is vacant and secured by the owner.

Inspection was conducted on July 10th of 2026 with permission from the owner.

Notice to appears at today's hearing was mailed and posted on the property on July 10th of 2026.

The primary structure is currently in a substandard and hazardous condition due to the exterior walls are deteriorated with breaches and cracks indicating structural wear and water infusion.

Roof shingles, fascia, and sawfit are deteriorated.

Ceiling has breaches throughout the structure.

Severe cracks observed in the foundation indicating structural wear.

Floors have cracks in separation.

Breaches throughout the structure allowing for harbors for pest and vectors.

Three churches, two schools, and three parks within a mile radius of this property.

There are other conditions that contribute to the structures being in violation of the minimum building standards ordinance, and they can be found on the included structure inspection report.

Staff recommends the building standards commission declare that the primary structure to be substandard and hazardous that the owner be given 30 days to repair or demolish the structure.

If the owner does not comply with the said order, authorized city staff to enter onto the property and cause demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated within the demolition against the property.

This concludes my testimony.

All right, thank you.

Any questions from officers or from commissioners?

All right, Ms.

Paz, you want to come up?

Um so you did you have any questions of the code officer?

Uh yes.

Um, you indicated in your presentation that you've had communications with the owner, is that correct?

Yes.

Who did you communicate with?

I have spoken with David Pacheco, and then uh recently spoken with another David Pacheco.

Okay.

Is David Pacheco the owner listed on this citation for this court for this commission?

I I have not written any citations.

Okay.

Uh this was issued to a Devlin Pacheco, is that correct?

The the commission that we're here before today, the notice was sent to Devlin Pacheco.

Is that correct?

And David Pacheco.

Do you have a copy of the citation notice issued to David Pacheco?

Yes, like I said, I never sent any citations, but the notices of your seeing the notice to appear, then yes.

Notice to appear says Devlin Pacheco.

Yes, but there also was included CC David Pacheco.

Who do you show as the owner of the property then, ma'am?

David Lynn.

Devlin Pacheco.

Okay.

But you never talked to him, correct?

He's deceased.

Okay.

So you're aware that he is deceased.

Yes.

Okay.

Uh, no further questions, Your Honor.

All right.

So what would you like us to know about the property?

Again, your honor, as I mentioned in the motion for continuance.

Uh, the owner that is listed here before the commission, Devlin Pacheco is deceased.

Uh, there is an open probate proceeding.

Uh, David Pacheco, who I'm here representing as the independent administrator, uh, is proceeding with the uh liquidation of that estate.

Uh, he has the property under contract for sale uh with a closing date scheduled for next week.

Uh the intent of the owner of the property uh that's going to purchase it is to demolish the property.

Uh so we believe that a continuance or some sort of 90-day extension to allow us time to complete this sale and demolition of the property would be the appropriate uh position to take in this matter.

Does the city have any questions?

I have a quick question.

Oh, sorry.

I have a question for you.

Yes.

So we were discussing the owner of the property, and it's he's deceased, correct?

Correct.

The letter that we have here is from David Pacheco.

Is that correct?

What letter that we have asking for a continuance is from David Pacheco.

Uh, I believe so.

You filed it before I was involved, yes.

Okay, so is now are you I heard you say you're working through probate.

Is he authorized to sell the property as an owner or an area?

Is the independent administrator?

He's assigned with the responsibilities to liquidate the estate.

Are that is a sell it, yes?

Okay, so we are going through all this ownership stuff, and we know that the owner is deceased, but I'm trying to figure out who is responsible for being able to sell this property that we're talking about.

As the administrator of the estates, okay.

No questions.

Um, we'll go ahead and hear from uh uh Rita Pacheco, where are you wanting to speak?

Okay, if you want to come up.

Morning.

Hi.

If you'll state your name and city residence, yes, my name is Rita Pacheco.

I'm a resident of Fort Worth, Texas.

Right.

And I am the lien holder on this property.

Okay.

What would you like us to know about the property or this case?

Deal in is the correct pronunciation of my uncle's name.

He is deceased as of 2021, July.

David became administrator in I believe it was December of 2022.

And the property has sat vacant for uh probably four years, and in that time, uh the property has been inhabited by anybody and everybody that wanted to come and do their drugs there.

There the property's been overgrown.

Um there have been the police have have been notified several times to come out because of problems with the property.

Uh people hiding out there, so it's it's been a real nuisance, and as the lien holder, I know that the property has been under contract many times, and I have an agreement with David Pacheco that the amount due to pay off the payoff amount for the property.

Um, he's agreed that once the property sold, then he will pay that amount, and I will release the lien.

Uh but the property being under contract really mean it's gonna sell.

Uh I hope it does.

Then maybe I can get paid after all these years.

Um but David lives in Florida, and the people that came and boarded the house and the people that come and uh cut the grass.

I don't know who they are.

I live nearby.

Um I know there have been a lot of problems here.

I would hope that they're going to sell it.

Um whatever the city needs to do, considering the condition of the house, I would appreciate if you just use your best, you know, knowledge and and experience with handling these.

I hope it sells, but there's not a guarantee on that.

So if this buyer falls through, um I'm sure he'll try to find another buyer, or I may have to consider foreclosure because it's gone on for so long.

But I'm you know, got my fingers crossed.

Hope everything works out, but I really want the property to be maintained.

It's it's the value of the property as lien holder, the value of the property has is really reduced quite a bit.

So I hope it sells.

Uh, you know, wish them the best of luck.

Um, and I just leave it up to y'all.

Thank you.

Does the city have any questions to the lean holder?

No questions.

All right, is the city ready to close?

Yes, thank you.

The city requests that the structure be declared substandard and hazardous.

The city further requests that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days, and if the one owner fails to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days, that the city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

All right, so the city uh Mr.

Pi.

Mr.

Pass.

The city uh has asked for 30 days, and I think you've asked for 90.

That is correct.

Okay, anything else you care to add?

No.

All right, and keep in mind, like on the other ones, there is an amendment process.

So whatever we uh uh grant today, uh you have an opportunity to amend to get more time if the cell falls through or need additional time, so just keep that in mind.

Thank you.

Um at this time, uh Ms.

Pacheco, did you want to charity leak?

Did you have anything else to say?

All right, thank you.

Uh at this time we'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it up for a motion.

Uh I moved the other stuff to be declared substandard and the hazardous second.

Second by Mr.

Alou.

Ready for a vote?

This is a motion to declare the primary structure substandard and hazardous, Mr.

Castles.

Aye, Miss Lane.

Yes, Mr.

Leiden.

Hi.

Mr.

Black.

Yes, Mr.

Dewali.

Yes, Ms.

Dottie.

Hi.

Ms.

Dyke.

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries eight zero.

Uh I move that the honor of the order to repair our demolished.

We did 30 days, and the owners fell to repair all the demolitis to we did 30 days.

Uh the cities that will be authorized to enter uh unto the property and the cause of the demolescent offset and the stucks and the lean all clos associate with the demoliscent edist the property.

Second.

So we have a 30 day any discussion on that.

All right.

Ready for a vote.

This is a motion to repair or demolish the primary structure within 30 days.

Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Glyden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Ywali.

Yes.

Miss Dottie.

Aye.

Miss Dike.

Aye.

Mr.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

That motion carries eight zero.

This commission has declared the structure to be substandard and hazardous and given the owner 30 days to repair or demolish.

Owners, leanholders, mortgage year record have the right to request an amendment within 30 days from the date of this order.

Owner, leanholder, mortgage year record have the right to file an appeal to the Terrant County District Court within 30 days of the date the city mails a copy of our order.

Commission also gives notice that failure on the part of the owner to comply with today's order may result in the scheduling and conducting of a civil penalty hearing to determine the amount of penalty to be paid.

Thank you both for coming.

Remember the amendment process if you need additional time.

If if you want to email us, you can get with us uh on a side, we can give you a place to send an address if you want to be included in the mailing list.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next case.

Next case.

It's the same structure on two separate parcels.

Next case is HS 2686, 2008 Mitchell Boulevard primary structure, aka lots 2-AB, 3-AB, 4-AB, and 5-AB, all in block 5, Avalon Heights, and addition to the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plot recorded in volume 309, page 77 of the deed records of Tarrant County, Texas.

Owner is Marcia E.

I.

Udo, doing business as COTLAX OP lean holder, none.

And we have a continuance request from Miss Udo as well as an appearance form.

Okay.

Miss Udo.

Yes, I feel uh so on here we have a continuance request.

Um here.

Um the city have anything on the continuance.

Uh the city would be opposed to a continuance.

Uh Ms.

Udo is properly served, and the city is prepared to go forward today.

Can you clear?

Was there a continu or a down here?

It says since my prior continuance request.

Has this been continued?

No, there were multiple uh supplements to that continuance request.

All right, thank you.

Just clarify.

All right.

Um, so uh you're still wanting a continuance request and you're here or just clarify.

Yes, for the continuance is 90 days.

Is that what you're referring to?

Oh, we're uh well since you're here.

What we you typically don't do continuance cases when the owner's here, so you're here.

So are you still needing a continuance or are you just asking for the time?

I'm here, so I'll just go ahead.

Okay.

If you can pull up the microphone, sorry.

There you go.

Um, so at this time we need to vote on the continuance request.

I move that we deny the request for continuance.

All right, Mr.

Castles, second second, yeah.

Good to you.

Um ready for a vote for denial of the continuance.

This is the motion to deny the continuance request, Mr.

Castles.

Aye, Miss Lane, aye, Mr.

Leiden.

Aye, Mr.

Black.

Yes, Mr.

Jawali.

Yes, Ms.

Dottie, Miss Dyke.

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

All right.

The motion to deny the continuance was eight zero.

Uh is the city ready to present.

If you want to have a seat, man, the city will present and then we'll call you up.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh the city would call Officer Carmen Killens to present the case.

Good morning again.

Um, my name is Carmen Killins, code officer for the City of Fort Worth Building Standards Division.

I present evidence regarding the primary structure located at 2008 Mitchell Boulevard.

This case was originated on March 13th of 2026.

This case was initiated by Supervisor Jason Pittman.

Notices was sent out March 17th of 2026, April 18th of 2026, April 21st of 2026, June 3rd of 2026, and July 6th of 2026.

There are no active permits on file.

The administrative search warrant was executed on July 2nd of 2026.

The notice to appear at today's hearing was mailed and posted on the property on July 10th of 2026.

The primary structure is currently in a substandard and hazardous condition due to exterior walls have breaches, are deteriorated and separating and lacks adequate weather protection.

Interior walls lack interior finishes and insulation.

Roof fascia in Soffit has breaches with exposed rafters.

Severe cracks and breaches observed in the compromise foundation.

Floors are covered in suit and debris.

Exposed electrical wiring.

Water leak observed on the exterior siding.

Breaches throughout the structure allowing harpage for pest invectors.

Two churches, three schools in four parks within a mile radius of this property.

There are other conditions that contribute to the structures being in a violation of the minimal vendor standards ordinance, and they can be found on included in the structure inspection report.

Staff recommends the building standards commission declare that the primary structure to be substandard and hazardous that the owner be given 30 days to repair or demolish the structure.

If the owner does not comply with the said order, authorize the city staff to enter onto the property and cause demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

This concludes my testimony.

Thank you.

What was the building before?

It's hard to tell.

Is it just a or do you know?

I don't know.

Honestly.

Right.

Okay.

Any questions from uh from commissioners?

All right.

Umda.

I'm sorry, I'm probably how do you pronounce that?

Marsha Udo.

Udo, okay.

If you'll state your name and city of residence.

Marsha Udo, Fort Worth, Texas.

All right.

Did you have any questions of the code officer?

Ummissioner, may I briefly clarify three items from the case background?

First, regarding the permits.

Um, the statement that there were are no active permits is outdated.

P026-01172 is active in Acela and Development Services.

Notified me on July 24th that the plans were approved.

Second, regarding the missing interior finishes and insulation.

I understand that the condition exists.

My clarification is that the building was never occupied and the interior was damaged after wiring and materials were stolen, removed.

My 90-day plan specifically addresses clean out, stabilization and repair.

Third, regarding exposed electrical wire.

My understanding is that the wiring was removed and stolen.

I am not represent uh representing that electrical work is complete.

I am saying that any electrical work will proceed through the approved permit path and city inspections.

Those are the corrections I wanted to make for the record.

All right.

And what would you like us to know with your plans for this property?

Um, good morning, commissioners.

My name again is Marsha Udo, and I am the owner of 2012 Mitchell Boulevard.

First, I want to thank God for bringing this project to this point, and I want to thank the commission for giving me the opportunity to speak today.

This building has a long history, and it has always had a purpose.

My request today is simple.

I am asking for 90 days to continue repair and stabilization under the city approved permit plan.

This building was originally part of a ministry and educational project for the community.

We began this project years ago because we wanted to serve the people, the young people and families in this area.

At that time, we were working towards opening a free Bible-based educational and community program.

The building itself was constructed years ago, but it was by us, by me, but it was never occupied.

We reached the final inspection stage, but there were unresolved site issues, including uh sidewalk requirements around the property.

Those issues delayed the project for many years.

Eventually in 2022, the sidewalk issue was resolved through a waiver.

During the years that the buildings sat vacant, particularly during COVID-19, the building was damaged.

People entered the building, removed wiring and materials, and damaged the interior walls and sheetrock while taking the copper.

You saw the insulation hanging.

They were taking the copper beneath it, and that's why the insulation was there.

This is the original building that you see there.

And then the next one, please.

That was the wiring that was behind that they were stealing from.

So I began working through development services.

Could you advance it, please?

Those were the breaches.

So to do it through developmental services, I had to do draw that floor plan, learn how to do the CAD to do it until it approved.

I also had to learn how to do the mechanical and the floor plan there, the site plan had to be done through many specifications until it got approved through God's grace.

The permit was not simple.

At first, the project was handled as a remodel change use.

Then it was temporarily temporarily moved to a new building permit because they knew we pulled the permit in 2006.

And then they said, well, it's a remodel.

But then the city, after we were getting ready to work with the building, switched it to a new building, and a whole bunch of new permits and requirements were asked of us, a lot of them.

And then just two weeks ago, they flipped it back and said, okay, we'll put it back as a remodel.

And that's when we things were facilitated and we were able to move through a little bit more quickly because then they were able to use my plans.

I submitted the revised plans, site information, energy code documents, mechanical and electrical information, and the other materials requested through the city process.

I did not ignore the process.

I stayed with it until the plans were approved on Friday.

On July 24th, development services notified me that the plans for P026-01172 had been approved.

Since that approval, I immediately began.

Um includes uh debris removal, roof and framing repair, and siding and disposal.

I am not asking the commission to ignore the condition of the building.

I understand the building needs work.

I am asking for time to complete the walk lawfully and safely under the approved permit plan.

In August, I will return to Fort Worth for focused interior clean out and safety access cleanup.

That will include removing loose debris, bagging falling insulation, clean clearing safe access and preparing the building for repair work.

In set September, when I finish my medical license and my exam, I plan to be back in Texas to move, and the focus will be roof framing, exterior stabilization, and under the roof approved permit path.

You see the estimate from Mr.

Juan that uh he is the uh foreman.

He does the homes for habitat for humanity through um I apologize.

I didn't write down his owner's company name because he gave it to him through his company, MJ, and they're the ones who gave me the estimate for $23,000.

He's been inside and outside of the building, taken numerous photographs, so he knows what he has to do, and they do 100% of the buildings for habitat for humanity.

Um my target is to keep this project moving so that God's little world campus can move towards opening and the serving our community on opening on uh December 12th on the feast of the Vihenda del Guadalupe.

So today I respectfully ask the commission for a 90-day repair timeline instead of demolition.

I am not asking for delay without action.

I am asking for time to continue the work that God has now begun under the permit path that the city has approved.

Thank you, God bless.

And if you go to the last one, I have a four-phase uh schedule of how it will be done for the building.

Thank you.

Do you have the funds to pay for all the yes?

We have $30,000.

Okay.

And so you're asking the commission for just 90 days to complete.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Any questions from commissioners?

I have a quick question.

Um I want to ask how the person is doing the work while you're out of town.

I know you'll be back in September, but permanent, but does he have a plan to keep it safe and secure so that you don't have this happen again?

The building is secure.

The building is boarded.

I saw that, but like is he going to be visiting it enough to make sure that there's no people in and out?

Like is he is he have a protocol?

I see that it's boarded.

Right.

Was it not boarded before when they took the people haven't been in the building?

That was never an issue.

I thought they took the copper.

I'm sorry.

Oh, that was during COVID-19.

Yeah, COVID 19.

That happened a long time.

Well, was it boarded at the time they entered?

No, it wasn't boarded then.

Yeah, I apologize.

I didn't understand.

Yeah, it's after COVID 19.

We saw what happened and then we boarded it, correct?

When did you board it?

You think roughly?

Oh I think COVID 19 was over in 2021.

So since that time, have you had any issues with people getting in?

No, no, because they took everything out, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, does the city have any questions?

No questions.

Or is the city ready to close?

Yes, thank you.

The city would request that the structure be declared substandard and hazardous.

The city would further request that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days.

And if the owner fails to repair, demolish the structure within 30 days, that the city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

All right, so the city's asked for 30 days, and I think you've asked for 90, correct?

Correct.

Anything else you would care to add today.

I think I read everything that I had intended to.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

At this time, we'll close the public portion and open it up for a motion.

I move that the structure be declared substandard and hazardous.

Second.

All right, ready for a vote.

This is a motion to declare the primary structure substandard and hazardous, Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Mr.

Jiwali.

Yes.

Ms.

Dottie.

Ms.

Dyke.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries 80.

I move that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 90 days.

And if the owner fails to repair or demolish the structure within 90 days, the city staff be authorized to enter into the property and cause demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

Second.

Any discussion.

Obviously, she's well prepared and has approached the um uh the the council today with with everything that she needed.

So that's very easy decision.

I I agree.

I think she had everything and uh came prepared for any possible questions that I would have asked.

So ready for a vote.

This is this is a motion to repair or demolish the primary structure within 90 days, Mr.

Castles.

Aye, Miss Lane.

Aye, Mr.

Leiden.

Aye, Mr.

Black.

Yes, Mr.

Ywali.

Yes.

Ms.

Dottie.

Aye.

Ms.

Steik.

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

The motion carries eight zero.

This commission has declared the structure to be substandard and hazardous and given the owner 90 days to repair or demolish.

Owner, leanholder, or mortgage of record have the right to request an amendment within 90 days from the date of the order.

Owner, leanholder, mortgage year record have the right to file an appeal to the Terrant County District Court within 30 days of the date the city mills a copy of the order.

Commission also gives notice that failure on the part of the owner to comply with today's order may result in the scheduling and conducting of a civil penalty hearing to determine the amount of penalty to be paid.

Thank you for coming on this.

Please stay in touch with your code officer.

We will have another hearing for the other part of this building.

So stand by on that, because it was two lots.

So it'll be just a second on that.

I'm ready for the next case.

Next case, it's the same building on the on the other portion of the lot, HS 2687, 2012 Mitchell Boulevard Primary Structure, AKA Lots 2-AB, 3-AB, 4-AB, and 5-AB, all in block 5, Avalon Heights, in addition to the City of Fort Worth, Terrant County, Texas.

According to the plot recorded in Volume 309, page 77 of the deed records of Terrant County, Texas.

Owner is Marcia E.

Udo doing business as coat laxway.

None.

All right.

So uh on this, we need to vote on the continuance request.

I move that we deny the request for continuance.

Second.

Who is that?

Ms.

Roddy.

Um ready for a vote.

I'm sorry, that was Ms.

Dottie's second.

Yes.

Um this is a vote to deny the continuance.

Mr.

Castles.

Ms.

Lane?

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black?

Yes.

Mr.

Jawali?

Yes.

Ms.

Dottie.

Aye.

Miss Dike?

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

That motion for continuance was denied eight zero.

Now we'll go ahead and hear the case.

The city's ready.

Yes, thank you.

The city would call Officer Carmen Killins to present the case.

Good morning.

My name is Carmen Killins, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Fort Worth, Build and Standards Division.

I will present evidence regarding the primary structure located at 2012 Mocha Boulevard.

This case was originated March 13th of 2026.

This case was initiated by Supervisor Jason Pittman.

Notices was sent March 17th of 2026.

April 18th of 2026, April 21st of 2026, June 3rd of 2026, and July 2nd of 2026.

There are no active remodeling permits on file.

Structure is vacant and secure by owner.

Notice to appear at today's hearing was mailed and posted on the property on July 10th of 2026.

The primary structure is currently in a substandard in hazardous condition due to exterior walls, have breaches, are deteriorated and separating and lacks adequate weather protection.

Roof fascia and soffit has breaches with exposed rafters.

Severe cracks and breaches observed in the compar compromise foundation.

Floors are covered in suit and debris.

Expose electrical wiring.

Water leak observed on the exterior siding.

Breaches throughout the structure, allowing harbors for pest in vectors.

There are several businesses, two churches, three schools, and four parks within a mile radius of this property.

There are other conditions that contribute to the structure being in a violation of the minimum building standards ordinance, and they can be found and included in the structure inspection report.

Staff recommends that the building commit sorry, the building standards commission declared that the primary structure to be substandard and hazardous, that the owner be given 30 days to repair or demolish the structure.

If the owner does not comply with the said order, authorized city staff to enter onto the property and cause demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

This concludes my testimony.

Thank you.

Any questions for the officer?

I feel state your name and city residence for this case.

Um so this is a standalone case.

So you're uh you're welcome to present anything again you'd like for this case, or you can tell us kind of what you're asking for, or if you have any questions of the officer for this case, and then we'll vote on this one as well.

Um, commissioners, my request for this second case is the same.

This is part of the same God's Little World Compass Project Site and the same approved permit path, stabilization work, contractor estimate, and 90 day repair timeline.

I respectfully ask that the same 90 day repair timeline for this case, this related case as well.

All right, and we will put one of these in each of the cases as evidence on that.

Thank you.

So we'll have it.

Um, did you have any questions of the code officer about on this case?

Um you've got a permit.

You told us in the last case, correct?

Right.

Yes, you should I repeat it?

It's up to you.

Whatever you would like on the record for this case.

Okay.

Um, commissioners, may I briefly clarify three items for the case background?

First, regarding permits.

The statement states that there are no active permits, um, is outdated.

P026-01172 is active and an Excela and development services notified me on July 24th that the permit would were approved.

Second, regarding the missing interior finishes and insulation.

I understand that the condition exists.

My clarification is that the building was never occupied and the interior was damaged after wiring and materials were removed.

My 90-day plan specifically addresses clean out, stabilization and repair.

Third, regarding exposed electrical wiring, my understanding is that wiring was removed or stolen.

I am not representing that the electrical work is complete.

I am saying that electrical work will uh proceed through the approved permit path and city inspections.

Also, the water when it was turned on two weeks ago.

I mentioned to the water department that I want needed the account for the approval, but the water was turned on and we have a faucet outside, and that's why that water you see.

But I called emergency for uh water department this weekend, and they've shut off all the water.

All right, thank you.

Anything else you care to add?

So you're asking us for 90 days.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

The city have any questions.

Uh no questions, thank you.

City ready to close.

Yes, thank you.

The city would request that the structure be declared substandard and hazardous.

The city would request that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 30 days, and if the owner fails to repair or demolish structure within 30 days, that the city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

All right, so the city's asked for 30 and you've asked for 90.

Anything else you'd care to add today?

Um it's the same for 2012 Mitchell Boulevard.

Thank you.

Uh, at this time, we'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it up.

Mr.

Lou, do you want to go ahead and do this one too?

Sure.

I move that the structure be declared substandard and hazardous.

Second.

Second was that Ms.

Dottie?

Okay.

Uh ready for a vote.

This is a motion to declare the primary structure substandard and hazardous, Mr.

Castles.

Hi.

Miss Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Mr.

Black.

Yes, Mr.

Juwali.

Yes, Ms.

Dottie.

Hi.

Ms.

Dyke.

Aye.

Mr.

Liu.

Aye.

Motion carries eight zero.

I move that the owner be ordered to repair or demolish the structure within 90 days.

If the owner fails to repair or demolish the structure within 90 days, city staff be authorized to enter onto the property and cause the demolition of said structure and lean all costs associated with the demolition against the property.

Second.

Ready for a vote?

This is a motion to repair or demolish the primary structure within 90 days, Mr.

Castle.

Aye.

Ms.

Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Juwali.

Yes.

Ms.

Dottie.

Aye.

Ms.

Dyke.

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

Motion carries eight zero.

This commission has declared the structure to be substandard and hazardous and given the owner 90 days to repair or demolish.

Owner, leanholder, mortgage year record have the right to request an amendment within 90 days from the date of the order.

Owner, leanholder, or mortgage of record have the right to file an appeal to the Tarrant County District Court within 30 days of the date the city mails a copy of the order.

Commission also gives notice that failure on the part of the owner to comply with today's order may result in the scheduling and conducting of a civil penalty hearing to determine the amount of penalty be paid.

Thank you for coming in today.

Please stay in touch with your code officer with any questions.

Okay, praise be to God.

Thank you very much.

At this time, we'll pull uh HS 2645.

Yep.

Amendment New Case Commercial HS 2645, 3201 East Lancaster Avenue, primary and five accessory structures.

AKA being all of lot five and a portion of lot six, block three, tandy addition to the city of Fort Worth, as recorded in volume 388, page 31, Terrant County Plat Records, Owners, RMP Hospitality, LLC.

There are no lienholders.

In addition to the previous appearance forms, there's an additional form submitted by a Lance Bashara.

And we have approximately seven statements from interested parties.

Thank you.

For the record, we did switch uh attorneys on this one at the up here and this dotted left before this case.

We have another appearance.

All right, Mr.

Patel.

Good morning.

Um are you going to speak or is your attorney or both or both?

Both.

Okay.

For the so if you'll go ahead and stage your name and city of residence.

Shetl Patel, City of Residence is Irving, Texas.

Let's make to be clear.

Let's vote to untable that one real quick that we already just heard.

I would like to untable.

I have a motion to untable this.

All right.

Second.

All right.

Uh quick vote, please.

Motion to untable HS 2645, 3211 East Lancaster Avenue, primary and five accessory structures.

Mr.

Castle.

Aye.

Ms.

Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden.

Aye.

Mr.

Black.

Yes.

Mr.

Jawali.

Yes.

Ms.

Dyke.

Yes.

Mr.

Lou.

Aye.

That motion carries seven zero.

Sorry about that.

Just to make sure we got it right.

Uh, what would you like us to know about this amendment request?

All right.

So my name is Shetla Patel, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak over here today.

First, I want to acknowledge that commission concerns regarding my property.

I understand the importance of maintaining a safe building and protecting the surrounding community.

And I take this responsibility very seriously.

Since the commission order, um, we have done a substantial progress on the property.

We have invested significant amount of time, effort, and financial resources uh to bring property up to the court and uh do a major improvement on the property.

While there is still some work remaining on the property, today uh we will be able to show the significant improvement done and uh what kind of process it took to finish uh everything that we accomplished.

I'm here today in a good foot respectfully requesting uh final 60 days uh extension uh to finish the remaining work.

This request is not to delete the process, but to allow enough time to finish the uh finish the few uh uh a few things that we have left uh to complete the final phase on the property.

I just like fully uh consider and ask commission to consent that the substantial progress made in my continued commitment to the compliance and willingness to complete every remaining requirement within the requested extension.

Uh over here on the first slide, you see that there is a structure of the property, uh a floor layout, if you would, the property layout, and then uh you would also see the permits that were taken to finish uh the building.

Building four, five, six.

Uh, we had to do some extensive renovation.

So we had to uh get the uh remodeling permit, and all those permit has been uh completed as of today.

Building two and three were completed as well, but there were a lot of cosmetic work that needed to be done on those buildings, so that's why the permit was not required.

The so five out of six buildings have been completed, uh securely completed and finished.

Uh the only building remaining is the uh uh office building on the property, building number one.

The second page on the slide would show the uh project flow chart and what we have accomplished and what we have finished in the last uh few months uh since we took over the since we took over the renovation project as we continue on the next slide.

That also shows the progress and the work that was done.

And then we have done through the permit and contractors and all the trades that was required to finish the project.

The final slides after that shows the uh pending work that's left to be done and why it would require at least 60 more days to finish the project.

We have a major substantial work left in a building number one, and that actually has five uh more than five rooms.

We have three bedrooms, uh one kitchen, one living room, one dining room, one wash at area, uh bathrooms.

So it's a big building.

The next slide shows the exterior of the property.

This is a building number two.

The amount of work that was done on the building number two, we replaced and uh repaired all the cement sidings, we repaired all the exterior walls and trims, all every single door frames, garage doors, uh, trims, fascias, board, uh, fascia board has been repaired.

Every building had a new concrete footer on the building parameter.

So we secured every hole interior, we replaced all the floorings.

We actually gutted down the room down to the subfloor.

We gutted down the room, and uh we replaced all the interior doors and the trims inside.

We changed all the floorings, we also upgraded all the sheet trucks where there was a holes and patches that needed to be fixed.

Uh, we replaced all the electrical outlets and all the plumbing fixtures were also upgraded.

Uh, units are currently moving ready.

So when I say we have finished five buildings, so we have finished all 19 units, plus, we had eight storage units and two utility closets.

So about 10 uh about 10 uh storage units as well as uh 19 moving ready units.

All those works was done inside and outside.

The next slides will show uh all the perimeters where we actually uh fixed all the sofia, uh the cement siding which was updated, upgraded, and the pictures were taken.

Um the paint was done, every single um gap was sealed uh and waterproofed uh soffit was fixed, uh, trim was updated, uh, windows, doors, everything was upgraded on the property.

Uh moving along through the pictures, uh we have secured all the gaps on the top of the, as you can see, uh on the top of the 18, all the uh where the cement siding touches the soffit uh uh or a rafter, we actually secured throughout the property as well.

The next picture would show the kind of work that was done.

So this is unit 19, uh, where we actually went down to the subfloor.

Uh we did the self-leavening concrete as well as we uh put the new tiles in the property, uh, textures, paint, uh, fixing of sheet rock, all the vanities were upgraded, the bathroom was done.

Um, like I said, it's a move-in ready.

We did about 70% of the property this way.

Moving on to the next picture.

There would be a unit 20.

Again, uh, as you see from the picture itself, all the units were done, passed and approved by the development department.

The next picture uh shows uh the exterior or the back side of the building where there were gaps and uh there were holes in the back where we actually replaced and put a new cement siding, as well as we did all the trim work, fascia work and uh yeah, uh the software updated on the property.

Every single siding that was on the property had been securely sealed and uh caught all around and repainted it again.

Moving on to building three.

Uh the initial picture we saw the building two.

Now this one is a building three, which has two units, 16 and 17.

Um, again from the exterior of the property, as you can see, everything was fixed and uh repaired.

We had done the cement cycling upgrade again, the painted exterior walls, trims, doors, windows, trims, uh, repair all the concrete footer in every single building.

Um that was all exterior work, interior work, flooring, doors, baseball trim were upgraded, all the electrical outlets and plumbing fixtures were upgraded in every single units.

Uh, sheet rock repair work was done, painting was completed inside and outside, and once again the units are moving ready.

Moving on to the next picture.

The next one.

Uh, this is an example of the work that was done in uh unit 16, where you can see uh how the units were upgraded uh from what it was in the past.

And then uh on the right hand side, you will see the bathroom uh where everything was uh changed.

Moving on to the next one.

This is unit 17.

Again, the similar type of work which was conducted in that unit as well.

The next picture.

So in building three, there is a garage right next to those two units.

Now what a city or code compliance has asked us to do is we had an attic access in every garage.

And they wanted us to close those attic access.

So this would show a new picture where every single garage, the gaps or the holes were sealed, secured, and the attic access was closed completely.

Building number next picture.

This is building number four.

We have about four units on that one, and that one was approved and updated as well.

Keep moving.

This is a back side, the LE side of the property, the back side of building number four, where again we can show through the picture that how everything was done, and the footer was uh concrete footer was uh put on every single gap of the building, as well as the cement siding and uh new exterior was upgraded on the back side of the building.

Moving on to the next picture.

Now uh the two utility closet uh that we have uh storage utility, we had not only done the inside and outside work, but based on the permit that was taken uh from the development, we have also upgraded the majority of the roof uh in this structure where the whole roof was done brand new.

Uh we have changed all the vents uh which was uh damaged previously.

Uh so roofing work was done as well, uh as well as the inside and the outside work.

Moving on to the next one.

So we also, besides that, we also have four breezeway uh that goes from one building to the other.

Initially, uh back in the days we had the sheet rope on the top of the breezeway, but uh that was changed, and um whole exterior was updated with the wood siding, uh the exterior wood siding, and even on the side uh we had to have an exterior wood panels that we had upgraded along with the trim and the uh board that was updated.

Moving on to the next one.

Over here, we had a roof line uh where we had a leak in the roof uh before the work was started.

The roof was completely broken, which was in the middle, and we had upgraded the whole uh center section with the uh new paneling.

This was done all uh with a building permit, uh which was approved and finalized by the city of Fort Worth.

Here is just an example of the roof uh which was added.

This was the whole section that we upgraded.

I think when the city came in and took the pictures of the building, they were not able to get the roof line pictures.

Um I just wanted to show that all the roof work and everything was updated, as well as the new turbines and the vents were added to the property.

Um, the roof work was done.

Moving on to the this is a building number six where the whole exterior was updated, uh fascia trim roof again, the vent that we talked about.

So wherever we did not uh put the turbine, uh we put the alternative of roof vent uh on the top of the building.

Moving on to another picture.

Again, this is uh the face shaboard which was upgraded, and uh the uh on the right-hand side pictures, it shows the footing that was done not only in the front of the property but surrounding the property throughout the property.

So all the gaps and the holes which were pretty much sealed.

Moving on to the next one.

Um, yeah, this was the soft.

So initially we did not have no soft, but then uh we included all the software on the rafters and everything was fixed and uh secured.

This is the garage.

Uh this is the current example of the garage.

Uh back on July 15th, when the code compliance officer uh Lynn came to the property, she noticed a couple of gaps in the hole in the garages, and she pointed out a few uh issues that needed to be addressed.

Uh, we took care of all those uh based on what we were told.

Yet uh even though she was there on the property 715, but we are still waiting on uh city staff to hear what are the updated uh reports that we need or if there is any additional work that needs to be done.

Moving on to the next picture.

Um, another example of the roof, uh the room upgrade with the tiles and the floorings and the panes and the bathroom.

So everything is secured and everything is uh ready to be moved or moved in, moving ready.

Moving on to the next one.

Um, this is another unit, unit two, the next one, unit three, where we have uh the uh living room, we have the kitchen where we upgraded all the tiles, and then the bathroom.

Moving on to another unit.

Unit four, moving on to another unit, unit five.

Um also to point out as of today, health department has done the inspection on the property, and every single unit has been uh open and uh ready to be rented except one.

Room seven was an occup uh room seven wasn't open because there was a little bit of glass shared, uh the glass was broken, and she did not open up that room.

The window glass was broken, and that room was not open due to that.

So that's the only unit that's closed currently uh from a health department.

Um the final picture uh that shows that building one is the one that we are requesting the extension for, even though that we haven't done significant improvement in this building, but based on the recommendation from the code compliance officer Lynn, we have painted all the uh facial board and uh all the underneath uh roofing uh uh rafters that was asked us to be painted.

We have done all that, uh, as well as we have secured and uh fill all the gaps and all the holes uh that needed to be updated on the building one outside.

Finally, uh we uh this is the time frame that we are required, and why we need additional 60 days is because the uh the building one has a substantial amount of work that needs to be done.

We needed to do the framing work as well as the plumbing and electrical that needs to be updated.

We need to have uh many contractor jugals.

We also need to juggle with uh many different uh uh uh inspection.

We do have an inspection and a permit on the file, but we still have to work with the city officers as well as we had to work with the health department and code compliance officer.

So there are many uh many contractors and the inspection that needs to be juggled, and hence I'm requesting an additional 60 days to finish the project and have everything ready.

Um the last slides should show us uh what's left.

Um again, building one uh repair uh that needs to be done.

Uh it uh requires the painting, flooring, pumping, and electrical work.

Uh, we have a lot of inspection that needs to be finished in that building.

We also have some uh outstanding work uh that uh code compliance would ask us to finish in the other buildings, which were already approved by the city, but they have some additional requests that needs to be done.

So uh and to finish up the punch out list, we need an additional 60 days to have the property um completely uh ready with any of the problems.

Um besides the report, I also wanted to mention that uh I have given all the commission members uh engineering report, uh, which shows that the framing inspection was done on the property, and the framing is not a substandard, as well as we have uh I have submitted the foundation report to the commission uh from the engineer, a professional engineer.

Uh that was done on the property.

Thank you for your time.

Um any questions?

Questions from commissioners.

What's the intent?

Are you to do like short-term rentals or is this a long-term rental?

Uh it's a hotel, it's a motel.

Uh so the plan initially the way uh this property was, uh, we went to a long-term tenant uh who are uh financially not stable but living on a check, uh low-income people who are living on the check from uh month to month.

Um so it's a mix of both uh short-term as well as the normally it's a mid-term to the long-term rental.

But it'll be subsidized housing.

Yes, sir.

I have a quick question.

Um, so as of right now, there's no one in staying in any of these rooms.

Yeah, that was the first thing we did uh before we started the complete uh renovation of the property.

We made sure that all the tenants were out of the property uh just to be uh secure and safe uh for their well-being.

And then we started all the renovations and everything on the property.

As of today, there's no with the permits that you have already received.

Have you had any final inspections?

Yes, ma'am.

Are the city on these specific rooms that are finished?

Yes, ma'am.

So buildings I heard you say the health department, but this is separate.

Yes, uh, with the permit itself.

I would uh I have submitted the copy uh to you guys, and uh those permit uh actually the status will show final.

So three of the permit on building three, four, and five, which were all final, and like I said, building two and three.

Uh so building two has three units, and building uh uh three has two uh building, I'm sorry, building two has three units, and building three has two units, a total of five units.

Well, there was a lot of cosmetic work done on the property, so that required no permit, but other buildings did require a permit for the work that needs to be done, and all those were final and approved by the city of Forthworth.

Yes, ma'am.

Um, I have a question on your foundation inspection on the um building one um code had um marked that you had severe foundation concerns, and on your foundation inspection, uh it says it was based on a limited visual observation, and that any structural components or conditions concealed by solar finishes were not evaluated.

So, how do we know that the foundation is adequate on this building one?

Good question.

Uh so the way we know is any time we apply for the permit and we are changing the flooring uh from the city of Fortworth, the first thing they require is a foundation report from the engineer.

Since we have done all the uh units in four, five, and six and other buildings, that's the report that was submitted to them, and they were okayed by it and they approved it.

Now, since we have started beginning uh the work in uh a building one, that's what we have to submit.

Uh so once we actually open up uh the flooring and everything, that's when we have to call the foundation uh engineer again for the building one and then have them look at it, assess it, and then uh based on that report and evaluation, we would have to progress further for that particular building.

When were the photos taken of the different buildings?

Uh it was taken last week.

Yes, sir.

It was taken after uh the code officer came.

Uh so code officer came on 7.15 um to create a report for the uh for the BCS hearing, and then there were a lot of things that she pointed us out that needed to be done, which we actually finished it, updated it, and uh all the photos were taken after that.

However, she did come on last Thursday um uh to do the inspection of all the interior units, and she does have the updated photos and the reports, but I don't believe that's part of the packet because she has already prepared the file and submitted the evidence to the BSCS hearing, uh, which was done on 7.15th.

Any other questions?

The city have any questions.

Yes, thank you.

Um, Mr.

Patel, the report is dated 7.14.

So uh and the inspection was done on 7.14.

Um, was any of this provided to the code officer on 7.15 when she no, it wasn't because I didn't have the report.

The inspection was done by the uh engineer, but they actually don't submit the report after a couple of days.

So I didn't have the report back then.

Just to clarify on the report, um, in the framing inspection, it states that it was a visual observation that was non-destructive.

So they weren't able to look behind any of the remodeling that you did.

Is that correct?

Their job is not to look at the remodeling.

What the job is to ask what their job was, Sarah, I just asked it.

They didn't look behind any of the any of the additional cement, any of the siding that you put up.

The engineers that came on the 14th were not able to see anything beneath that, correct?

The siding they cannot, but uh for the framing inspection, what they do is they actually look at all the attic access.

They they personally go in the attic and check all the framings.

They are not going to open up the wall and see what's behind the wall, but they are only able to see what's available to them.

And we have every single building, we have an attic access in that.

So they did actually went into the building to look at the framing structures on the property.

Okay.

Well, is that why you waited until the 14th to get that engineering inspection done before until after you'd done all these cosmetic repairs on the outside?

It was a process.

It's not about why we waited, why we did not wait it.

The process is that we have to do uh the stuff that's required by the city, and we have to do everything in the order.

So we started doing all the cosmetic repair first, and that's makes sense because doing all the cosmetic work does not require the permit.

Now, the second thing on the phase, I mean, we had created the timeline and we had created the chart, so we just had to follow that and finish everything that's needed.

Uh but yeah, we just followed the process and we finished everything that was needed.

So your process was to do all of the the final cosmetic repairs before you had any engineering reports structurally that needed to be done.

Correct.

Okay.

Um moving on to the um assessment, the engineering assessment of the foundation repairs.

Did you uh you stated that you repaired a concrete footing, so you poured concrete around the buildings?

Correct.

Did you get any permits done for um pulled for that?

That's a standalone concrete.

Uh, when we went to the building uh and I asked the inspector who came on the property, he said that no permit is required.

The footing is not for the structure, it's just to protect or have any gap between the siding and it's a non-structural uh concrete that does not require no permit.

So you poured concrete around the foundation and put up siding before an engineering report on the foundation could be completed, correct?

Right.

And uh engineer actually saw that, and it's a non-load-bearing uh uh structural.

We have a peer beam floor, so peer beam floor does not have a concrete uh uh foundation on it.

But there was fresh concrete poured around the foundation, correct, and they saw that and they didn't have any objection to that, correct.

Also, worked with the uh development uh inspector um from the city.

Again, your engineering reports are limited to only visual inspections that could be observed on the 14th after siding was put up, after cement was poured around the foundations, and there was nothing observed prior to those repairs.

Not true.

So they had an initial inspection uh where they saw the building and they saw the structure.

The way engineering report works is that they go in uh different units for the structural, and then they check they check the units and they see if there is a level on the floor.

Uh if the level is uh not aligned, then they come to the conclusion that okay, this building has a uh uh issue of not having a stable floor or in uh stuff like that.

Uh they also do a visual inspections, uh, garages were not done on the 14th, as you will see in a lot of pictures that Miss uh Lynn would submit right now.

She came on 15th, and a lot of garages that you see over here right now, which were closed and the siding, it was open at that time.

So it was available for the visual inspection for the engineer as well.

Um so in the uh foundation inspection says this opinion is based on a single site visit.

So they didn't observe anything before the 14th.

And it also states that the structural components or conditions concealed by soil finishes and other materials were not evaluated.

So again, the siding, you put up the the cement that was poured around the foundation was done before an inspection could be done, and this um engineering report is not based on anything prior to that, correct?

Not true.

So when you say cement, uh so the concrete perimeter that put throughout the property that was done after 15th, you would see that uh with the pictures that Miss Lynn submits today.

Um those uh concrete uh pour wasn't done.

We always had the concrete pour.

Even in the first inspection, we had the concrete pour, and that's when uh Miss Lin determined that we have a concrete foundation issue, but it's a peer beam flooring, and we don't have anything concrete or a load bearing on the concrete.

The concrete, uh if you can go to the picture, I'll tell you the slides.

Um let me see.

Uh yeah, even that slide.

Yeah, okay, let's leave this right.

So peer beam floor is actually above uh the level.

The concrete is just to protect if the water goes through and to protect the outside.

It's no load bearing on the flooring or the structural component of the property.

And just to be clear, there were no permits obtained for foundation work and no permits obtained for structural work, isn't that correct?

We were not needed to have any foundation work or structural work permit needed uh other than the building one, which is where we uh intend to apply for.

I don't have any further questions at this time.

Thank you.

Because what if there was something wrong structurally?

How do we know that this is not gonna fall because they haven't looked?

Sorry, there's a glare.

Um how do we know that the the it's sturdy if the engineer did not get to look at it before you covered it up?

Good question.

So we had an initial inspection done with the engineering team where they looked at it.

So it wasn't like the whole siding was broken and we didn't have any framing.

Even when the case was presented uh back in uh May, uh, we had all the siding and stuff done.

So everything property was in intact and it was uh there.

The only thing was that the siding was cracked or broken that had to be repaired.

Uh so what engineer did when they assess the property for the structural foundation, they went in several buildings and they used their machine.

I'm not sure what the machine is called, but they check the level of the flooring, they check everything and see if the floor is level.

Then uh they went into the uh attic of each building and they looked at the component of the framing and everything that was done.

Plus, on the siding of the garage, uh she came, uh code compliance officer came on 15th.

We did not cover the garage.

The garage work was still in the progress.

So engineer was able to see because the only way they can do do the assessment or they can give us a report is that they have to see how the uh scene is behind the scene, uh, behind uh how the uh foundation is standing.

And based on what they saw and uh a couple of garage which were open, that's where they give the recommendation uh that this is uh structurally sounded property, and we don't need on those buildings.

Uh we don't need any uh foundation work.

So you said on here says they've only been out once.

Who came out the first time?

Uh so the way that happens is they came twice.

Uh they actually came uh three times, I think.

Uh three different officers.

Uh they came, uh two different officers on 14.

And the first time the initial engineer comes to do the assessment of the property, and the second time uh they give us a recommendation of what could be done, what could be avoided, how we need to breathe and have the cross ventilations.

So we took all the recommendations that they give.

Uh, cross ventilation would be to open up a uh gap in uh uh, let's say if there's a structure for example, like this.

We certainly cannot open up a siding in the front, but if there is a backside of the property uh where we can actually open up some area, so we have done that in several garages where we open a few areas um to do the cross ventilation uh to avoid any damages and stuff like that.

So we had three engineer, three different visits comes on the property, one for the framing and two for the foundation, and this is the final assessment after the you said the the this R, who is the engineer R rokit solutions?

How many times did they come out and what?

Three times.

Three times.

Yes.

So we have reports from their other times.

So uh the first time was an initial uh we have two reports right over here, limited framing reports, so that's the second, and then we have a foundation inspection report, so that's third.

Uh initial was an initial evaluation.

So we did not got a report for that.

But it on here it says this opinion is based on a single site visit.

Yes, the foundation report and the limited framing report is based on the single site visit.

But they came more than once.

Yes, sir.

Do you have photos from what they took?

It mentions photos.

Uh I don't have it over here with me.

Do you have any photos of any of the work that you did to the member or to the uh uh rafters or anything to repair that before you I don't have it over here in the presentation, but I have submitted to the development department.

To the who, I'm sorry, to the city of Fort Worth uh where the permit was done.

And then I was working with that inspector.

I have a question for the city, if you can answer maybe on the on the permits where it says that they were completed.

Does that mean that the city went out and looked at them?

Or is that can you go back to that screen that has permit at the bottom right where it showed complete?

I think it's the first screen.

Uh the very first.

Yes, sir.

Yes, the ones that are noted as final has had um an inspector from development final um inspect and final.

Which would that mean that it's no longer substandard and hazardous?

No, that just means the work was completed in the scope of the permit.

Okay.

And there were no structural permits.

Um, and the city has um a supervisor from development here to testify about the um permits and what's required and what he has pulled.

Okay, are you gonna call them with your okay?

Yes.

Um, any other questions from I have a clarification.

Um, you said that these are uh this is a pier and beam foundation.

Right.

Yeah, you put the concrete around it.

There are no um cross ventilation, uh, so that wood can breathe.

And I also see no gutters or downspouts that are directing the water away.

How do you plan on maintaining the moisture control around these buildings?

Good question.

So, what we initially had was um there's all the uh uh wood siding behind the concrete, and then that has a moisture barrier, and then all the gutters are not there, but all the buildings uh get the water, and if there is a water coming to the siding, it actually naturally flows out, and that's why we had a concrete uh uh concrete thing done on the bottom so to smooth out the water and flow the water outside uh to the ground.

Okay, slur, yes.

All right, before the city goes, is your attorney wanting to speak?

If you want to serve okay.

All right, um, is the city ready to present?

Yes, thank you.

Uh first the city would call Officer Lynn Wisnant to present her update on the case.

Good morning, Commission.

Um Officer Catherine Lynn Wisnant.

Permits PB 26-03356.

Uh PP 26-04160.

PB 2608519 and PB 2608 512 were obtained.

Um structures vacant and secured by owner, or six of them.

The owner was present at the May 18th, 2026 hearing when the commission ordered 30-day to repair or demolish the structures.

The owner had until June the 17th of 2026 to comply with the order.

The owner requested amendment on May the 19th, 2026.

The owner requests an additional 90 days to complete the repairs or demolish order.

A notice to appear at today's hearing was mailed and posted on the property on July 10th, 2026.

Owner was present on July the 15th, 2026 for a reinspection of the property before the hearing on July the 27th, 2026.

At that time, the owner had 28 extra days for compliance.

Current status, no structural repairs have been made.

Only minor cosmetic have been made.

These repairs prevent observation of structural condition.

Active permit PP26-04160 is a plumbing standalone permit.

Active permit PB 2608512 for building five is replacing sheetrock with exterior wood siding on breezeway ceiling, replacing rotten/slash broken fascia board siding and soffit, replacing interior door unit eight, unit nine, and unit 10.

Replacing partial roof sagging if needed upon inspection.

Request rotten rafters if needed upon inspection.

Active permit PB 26-0815, building number four, replacing sheetrock with exterior wood siding on Breezeway ceiling, replacing rotten fascia board siding and soffit, replacing interior door unit 11, replacing sheetrock and exterior siding in garage B, replacing rotten rafters if needed upon inspection, replacing partial roof sagging if needed upon inspection.

This ends my testimony.

Yes.

What would need to be done to make them not substandard and hazardous?

If we were to give additional time today, what would need to be done to make them not substandard and hazardous?

Well, I'm not a contractor.

Yeah, just the um structural issues that the buildings have, and some of those are on the inspection reports.

But how would he be able to show that?

I guess I'm just trying to figure out where today, you know, where we're standing today, if additional times given or if additional times not given where we stand.

Any other questions for the officer?

The reports that he had done prior to the day before you showed up, but but you haven't seen those reports yet.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And these are the reports that we have that he gave us.

Has the city not seen any of these reports yet?

I don't think so.

City was not provided with a copy of these reports until just before um his testimony.

Okay.

All right.

Do you have any questions?

Are you I do?

Okay.

Can you go ahead and state your name and city of residence?

Uh Luke Basura, Fort Worth, Texas.

Thank you.

And officer, I'm sorry, I didn't get your last name.

Wisnant.

Wisnat.

Yes.

Officer Wisnett, uh, the original order that the city requested uh gave my client 30 days to complete all these repairs, correct?

Correct.

And you take issue with the fact that my client immediately tried to comply with this commission's order by doing the cosmetic repairs, which did not require the permit, and then waiting to do the other work that did require a permit until those permits were issued.

That's correct, isn't it?

It is for the yes.

Okay.

And you understand that when my client was here last time, we asked the commission for additional time so that we could do this in a more orderly fashion, and you and the city opposed it and requested 30 days to complete everything, correct?

The commission gave him 30 days for repairs to be completed.

But that wasn't my question.

You and the city opposed my client's request for additional time to complete this process in an orderly fashion by giving us more than 30 days.

Did you not?

The city the commission gave the owner of the property 30 days for repairs.

I think that you understand at the conclusion of these things, you've been in these a lot.

There's a summary that the city's attorney gives to the board, and we've heard it a few times here today where the city says we want you to find it substandard, and we want you to order it to be repaired or demolished in 30 days.

Have you heard that when you've been sitting in here today?

Yes, sir.

Do you understand that is exactly the same request that the city made the first time we came here?

Yes.

Okay.

So how can you take issue with my client trying to comply with this commission's order by doing everything that he possibly could as quickly as he could, and then show up here and tell the commission that it's his fault for not getting an engineer report before he put concrete skirting around the building?

The commission I would draw the question.

Any other questions for the city?

No, thank you.

All right, thank you.

Anyone else have any questions of the city or the owner before we call interested parties?

I have a question.

Okay.

For the attorney.

It's right over here.

I'm on the commission.

Over here.

Up there.

Right here.

When we gave the order for 30 days, did you not go through the amendment process?

Did we request an amendment?

Yes, we immediately did because we recognized 30 days wasn't enough.

And that's why we're here today, thank goodness.

We have made substantial progress as my client has shown through his presentation and his reports.

We have the construction schedule.

We're going as quickly as we can, but it does take time.

Okay, we're aware of that.

On slide 18 and slide 21, it shows some foundation issues.

Was that and then now they're concreted, so we're not able to get any images of how that was repaired.

We can present images of that.

The concrete skirting is non-structural.

If need be, you can get in there and do it.

It when we talk about a peer and beam foundation, I'm assuming everyone on the commission.

We're very familiar.

So we can knock out the concrete skirting and replace it.

It's not that difficult to get in there and get you the pictures that you want.

But could that have been done within that 30 days that we gave you to look through that, get that information, and then when you did the amendment, get back with us?

I don't think that it could because we couldn't rely upon an amendment necessarily being granted.

We were given 30 days.

We had requested longer than that.

I don't know if if you recall the last time we were here.

So when you tell us 30 days, we are going to do everything we can to comply with that 30 days.

Yes, we did request the extension, but that's only because it was absolutely necessary, not born of luxury.

But because you get into the process, that's why we have that as an option.

But I was just trying to clarify that why were we why were there not photos taken so that we can make a good assessment of if it's substandard or hazardous?

Well, I would refer you back over to the engineering report.

It's beyond my can to speak to structural stability.

Uh in terms of uh why the pictures weren't taken, uh well, we were trying to meet the commission's orders and getting everything done, and that did not allow us ample time to do everything.

We wish we could have gone in what I would call a critical path way, which is you don't start your cosmetic stuff until you finish your structural stuff.

But with the 30 days, we have to hit the ground running doing everything that we can.

I understand that uh extensions amendments may be common, but we don't take those for granted.

The board was pretty serious from what they're not to be taken for granted, but the communication and A B and C are important.

I I agree.

And so we once you guys voted down the request for the extended period of time, we were doing everything we could to meet that.

And so 30 days was not long enough to get those images of the foundation repair.

Is that I'm just trying to clarify.

Images, I mean, those could be pictures taken.

So I I'm loath to say that 30 days isn't long enough to take a picture.

What I'm saying is 30 days to complete everything that the city was requesting us to complete and to do it in that time frame.

Yes, it was frankly impossible, and that's what we tried to express at the last hearing, and that's what we're here to express now.

These buildings will may be not perfect, they're dramatically improved.

And if the commission is gracious enough to grant our request for this additional extension, then I will make sure that we go in and we get the testing done and the imagery that you want, even if it requires knocking out concrete skirting and later replacing it.

Okay, I just want to clarify.

You were granted the amendment time, and so as of today, this is where we are, and if needed, structural information, we are able to get that.

Well, I would I would disagree.

We filed a request for an amendment that to my understanding reading it, that's not an automatic process.

No.

So yes, you gave us 30 days.

Yes, we filed for the amendment request, but that's not a guarantee.

So we've still been hitting the ground running, hoping we could get everything completed for you today.

But alas, we have not, and for the reasons that we've stated.

So I apologize that not everything is completed.

We have worked diligently.

We explained at the first hearing why we needed additional time.

I think we've shown why we need additional time here.

You've raised some good points, and I will need additional time in order to address your concerns there, but they can be done.

So back to picture 18.

Sorry, I've got so what was done on this this piece right here on picture 18 on the right, uh, where the you can see some raw, it looks like some rot on the sub on the uh peer and beam.

What was done to fix that?

Chairman, I'm gonna defer to my client on these issues.

Fact questions like that.

Thank you.

So on that, uh, we had to replace the uh two by six, uh, which was uh on the site, and then uh the foundation uh was correct.

Uh the the rotted part had to be taken out, but that's not a structure that was on the side of it that shows uh right above the picture.

The beam and the support was strong enough uh to withhold uh the the uh the property and then the floor was completely level.

And when you say it's strong enough to support and it's completely level, whose opinion is that?

Is that yours or no?

That's uh engineers uh inspection.

And then he did give us some recommendation that needs to be done.

So if we have to replace everything and if we have to change it, then it would be completely a different way of doing that because 2024 structural engineer or 2024 court uh requires us to uh do it completely different.

But they didn't see this.

They did saw that because this picture was taken by Officer uh uh Lynn uh on uh July 15th when they came and the site was open.

I'm sorry, you said the site was open on July 15th when she took photos.

Uh because it's closed currently, right?

Yes, that's correct.

That that was not so they did not see that, but that was a recommendation that was given.

And we have because they came on the initial inspection.

Remember, I told you that the first time when they came and they assessed the property and they gave us a recommendation that needs to be fixed and what the foundation requires.

Uh that's when they give us the initial ins.

So they gave a recommendation on the foundation without seeing said foundation.

Correct.

So how do they make a suggestion on something they've never seen or they had not seen?

Before when they came on the property, this was all open.

There was nothing uh concede or nothing closed.

I think there's some ongoing confusion in what transpired here.

I know the report says there's been one site visit, that's for the final report.

There's actually been three site visits.

The first one is your prelim, right?

So the report is incorrect.

Insofar as you are interpreting it to mean that they only came out once.

Yes, that's incorrect.

I think that the final report is based on that final site visit.

But there's a prelim, which when did that occur?

So there's a preliminary uh inspection that the engineer comes in and does, which my client says was about 30 days before this.

So before any of this stuff is is happening, I think in picture 18 there on the left, the engineer came out and did view, for example, this this open uh pier right here.

Uh second time and then the second time they came on July 14th.

Right.

And I would also like to mention that when this was actually going through with the engineer and uh contractor, we also called and I have emailed Miss Lin to come to the property to for to do the site inspection, but uh I do have an email proof.

She told me in the email that they are not allowed to do that, they cannot come in between.

The only time she will come would be after uh the date is over and she'll only come once.

So I'm not going to keep everything open for her uh to come and then again take a picture and give us a uh uh give us uh uh incomplete work on it.

So I was doing everything I could before uh as fast as I could to finish everything uh on the property.

I did request her to come uh during this process when it was going through.

Uh I request her to come give us a list.

I have uh I have the email of that uh sending it to her.

So do we have a report from their first inspection to tell you what needs to be done?

Uh yes, we have a recommendation uh initial recommendation report, correct.

And do we have that?

We don't have that over here because I submitted the final copy of it when everything was good.

So how do we know that you did what they said needed to be done?

Based on the final report, uh they say that.

Because they didn't look at anything that was concealed at this time, and when they came out, it was concealed.

It wasn't concealed on 14.

They came uh uh they came on 14th morning when the everything was open at that time.

All right, so did you take pictures of any of these repairs that you made?

And your attorney talked about how you were trying to hurry to get the cosmetic.

So I would have assumed you would have taken pictures showing, hey, I did this, this, this.

Did you do that just to show?

Some of them I do have a pictures of.

Yes.

Or though where are those?

Uh I do have a picture of it, uh, but I don't have it on the why wasn't that presented for us to see.

I mean, this seems to be the concern is we can't see what's behind the the cosmetic.

So you could have easily cleared that up by bringing those photos, I guess is where I'm concerned.

I I wasn't aware of it that that was needed, but uh I'm not sure if I have it over here.

Let me see if I can clear it up.

And to summarize somewhat, July 14th, this was open.

Correct.

The engineer came out and said all good.

Oh, you knew code was coming out on the 15th.

So we had to close that or we cannot leave it open uh for them to be uh and we have no pictures of anything of the 14th.

No, so like I said, uh for the commission hearing, what we did was give me a second.

So what we did was we actually put everything and we painted it.

So if you see from my presentation, like I told you, I have done the final uh walkthrough uh with her.

She came on last Thursday as well.

Uh and we have we have an updated picture.

So the finish out and everything.

I wasn't aware that we needed a picture of those things uh in the commission to show.

Okay, I have one last question.

Yes, ma'am.

Um and then we'll get to the other people that need to speak.

But I just want to clarify this.

Yes, ma'am.

You needed clearly some foundation that requires a permit from city development services, city development services, then usually once that permit is submitted, approved, you get the foundation repair.

They usually send someone out through the city, not code, someone through development.

Correct.

We did not need any foundation permit, like I said, on those buildings.

However, we do need a foundation permit on a building number one.

Uh those buildings actually had a self-leveling.

So what okay, so who told you you did not need foundation help with these other buildings?

The engineer, based on his report and the assessment, he clearly said that the first time.

No, the first time he gave me a recommendation.

So there are two ways.

So okay.

So let's start over a little bit, sorry.

So uh initially.

I'm just looking at this picture.

I'm starting from this.

Okay.

So this is the first time and everything happened.

Uh I called the uh uh engineer to actually assess the property and see if the peer beam uh floor was intact or not, or if we needed to change everything and we had to lift the building.

He said that there are multiple ways to do that.

Uh, one of the reasons we had a little bit of slope uh inside the room was because the floor wasn't level.

So either I could raise up the beam and do the foundation work on that, but that would be possible if the foundation was bad.

And based on his assessment, he told me that there is other ways to do it.

The other ways to uh do was to remove all the floorings and everything down to the subfloor, installing a self-leveling uh concrete, because that will actually level out the floor, being an old floor and old tile which was cracked and stuff, and that's why the floor was uh uh going sideways.

Once we did that, uh he gave me a couple of rec a recommendations for the cross ventilation as well, which we needed to do on the back.

And he said that the structurally the property does not uh looked old uh based on the age and everything, but he did told me to replace those uh uh two by six on the site.

When I talked to the inspector uh development officer, he said that since I have not done any foundation lifting and any foundation work, I did not need any foundation permit for those buildings.

Other questions?

Yes, I have a question for officer when's that um uh when the case originated in January of 2026, you brought to the attention that building the found there was foundation issues in building one, four, five, and six?

Yes.

And those were not addressed as of the uh I mean, those were not shown to you that they were repaired and structurally um significant on the 14th of July or the 15th when you went.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Tell one more question, and then we'll get to the sorry, we'll ask one more.

So you knew so they were out on July 14th, correct?

The engineer, and you knew we were coming on the 15th.

Right.

Why didn't you let us see what was done when she came out?

You knew she was coming to document it.

Yeah, but uh she was so then the work would not be done, and then if she's coming, then my job was to finish all the work that was needed.

So I thought the report would be good enough to show that everything was done based on the third party.

But you knew you were coming here today to ask for an amendment, so it wouldn't have mattered if you covered it or not.

She would have been able to testify today that it was done.

So maybe it was a hindsight on my part because I don't do this for a living.

I mean, my understanding from uh I'm not even a general contractor, so for my understanding is that finish everything that's given in the uh on the timely manner, and that's why we were rushing to complete all that.

If you see the pictures on July 15th and the pictures that I showed you, you would see clearly that the uh siding was not even cocked.

I mean, the gap wasn't even cocked, uh, neither the siding was painted.

And uh the pictures that you see today, uh, and she could testify for this too, that uh when she came uh last Thursday, everything was uh uh caulked, painted, all the gaps and the holes were sealed.

Um, everything had a waterproof, so we were just continuously doing the work as needed.

Yes.

I just don't think one day would have mattered if you could have let her see what you've done.

In my mind it would have mattered because then she would have cited me for that because then there was an incomplete work.

So in my mind, I need to finish it, I need to do it in timely manner.

And again, like I said, I have called her, I have requested, I have emailed her.

Uh their assessment or their uh uh what they told us uh through the email was they are not able to come for the site inspection.

They cannot come on the property at all until everything is done, and then they'll come once.

Okay.

All right, any other questions?

All right, now we'll get some interested parties up.

Uh we'll start uh Thomas Hamilton.

And again, for the interested parties, uh, we'll let you have three minutes to speak, uh, and then we will uh move on to the next one.

We won't ask questions uh because y'all are interested in the party.

I don't know if that one works.

Can you go over to this one?

Sorry.

If you'll state your name and city of residence, Ms.

Rambler.

My name is Thomas Hamilton, and I live in the city of Fort Worth.

All right.

What would you like us to know about this property?

Well, for one, I've been a contractor most of my life or worked in construction.

The fact that if you've got a raised peer and beam foundation like that, you must have some type of access panel for plumbing repairs, some way to get up under there and look in case something goes wrong.

Either an access panel inside the building, which being a motel, I would understand why, but you should have at least a break in the foundation around the building to where you can get up under there.

If you don't, especially with no gutter system to redirect that groundwater, you're creating a mold problem.

A mold problem that you're not gonna be able to see or even know that it exists.

Um if you cover it up, you ain't gotta fix it.

So what's been done has been done specific and has been done to conceal.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you for coming today.

Mr.

Phipps.

Uh good morning.

I guess still.

Good morning, commissioners.

My name is Mike Phipps.

I live in Fort Worth 76103.

I know this case keeps being referred to as the first time we were here.

Let me be clear.

The first time we were here was back in 2009.

This is not new to Mr.

Patel.

They have owned the property since 1021 of 1998 through 121 of 2010.

That was Mr.

Majula Patel, the uh Manjola Corporation.

He owned the property for 4,109 days before it went into the ownership of Chatel Patel.

At that time, it was 122 of 2010 until today.

Under his ownership, it's 6,030 days.

The combination of 10,141 days is what the Patels have owned this property.

Back then we had a case HS0938.

That was at the end of 09 and the beginning of 2010.

So none of this is new to the Patels.

I'm really surprised that we have had to come back to this.

Same problems, same property, same ownership.

Uh that's 27 years, nine months, and six days.

Why we need 30 more days or 60 more days to do more work is beyond me.

Why anything, the only time anything gets done here at this property is through enforcement of our city staff.

Nothing is ever done proactively.

And no matter how much lipstick you put on this property, it boils down to the clientele that the patels keep at this location.

We have had more arrests, more drugs, prostitution, deaths coming off of the property.

I mean, we're just done.

It's time to move forward.

They have shown it's just a wash, rinse, and repeat situation.

I'll guarantee you if it stays in the same ownership, we will be back here in another 10 years.

And I hope that that doesn't happen.

One problem that we have is whenever we see things going on at this location.

We have no means of contact with Mr.

Patel.

You call the phone number that is online, which is 817-550-8090.

You get a fax machine.

You can't even talk to anybody just to call and say, hey, what's going on as an interested resident, uh concerned resident in the neighborhood?

We have some issues and we'd like to talk to you about it.

We can't even do that.

Uh I really don't have anything more to say other than it's just time to move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Fanny.

Hello, Mr.

Chairman.

Uh, ladies and gentlemen of the building commission.

My name is Tuan Fan.

I am a resident of Fort Worth.

I am in District 7, but we have my family has property on Peerington Avenue, which is a quarter mile from the motel.

And it is, as you've heard from our neighbors, it has been a blight in this area.

I drive by it every time we go to our property to work on it, and it has been nothing but problems, especially given the clientele.

I have come early in the morning once and found four people on my property before we had a fence up, they were scoping it out to steal things.

My neighbor has seen someone walk out with a dishwasher on the property.

Uh the Eco Motel has the clientele attracts, and the proximity to another neighbor's property has been so bad that people will go into this neighbor's yard and just hang out in her back porch on her patio.

They'll urinate, they'll defecate.

It got so bad that a lieutenant, I believe, from the Fort Worth Police Department organized the drive to raise the money, and he organized a weekend or a Saturday where all the neighbors came out and a local tree company came out, donated their equipment and their time to take down some trees and build a metal fence for her so people would stop coming onto her property.

Now, I don't know Mr.

Patel, and I don't want to impugn his motives, but it seems to me he's rather contemptuous of this process.

As an investor, I consider myself a peer to him.

And I'm very, very familiar with the remodeling aspects of the work.

I'm actually a chemist by training.

I worked in oil and gas, and my father talked me to coming back to Fort Or, if I was in California at a refinery, he talked me to coming back here.

And before he let me deal with the finances of things, he made me train and work under licensed contractors under all the trades.

So I'm very familiar with all of the work that goes into remodeling.

In fact, given enough time, I can build you a house with my own two hands.

And it seems to me that Mr.

Patel is trying to conceal the condition of the property.

No one does cosmetic work first before they do structural.

That's just completely backwards.

And I'm not here to like litigate every single thing, but the as the the board has um brought up with the foundation and pouring the footing.

It seems to me that that it's just gonna keep continuing that he's just gonna keep trying to just band-aid it best he can, keep extracting money from this, and on and on it goes.

And so we're very proud of the work we've done personally as investors.

We have a property, as I mentioned, in this area.

We have two more in central Meadowbrook and many more scattered across the city.

We believe in the city.

I was born and raised here.

We believe Fort Worth is on the rise, and we want the city to be to create an environment that's conducive to revitalization of these areas.

We like Central Meadowbrook enough that the property I'm talking about on Purington.

My sister is uh accepted into an accounting program at UT Arlington, and we're actually thinking of letting her move into there instead of just renting it out because she likes the area so much.

So we believe in the area, and we hope that's a city will help us and help the citizens who live here to create a safe environment for them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr.

Haas, her house.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dan Hayes.

I'm the vice president of Central Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association.

My association with this property uh goes back to 1983 when I lived about 400 feet to the north for nine years.

It was a magnet for bad things then, and it still is because of how the property presents itself to the public.

I think uh the owner has played the system for years, and today is a perfect example of that.

All this hurrying around 30 days to get all this stuff done.

We had to hit the ground running.

They didn't just find out 30 days ago that they needed to do something to this place.

This case is only here because this code compliance people brought it to their attention and they failed to make the repairs, and now they had to hurry up and get it all done and cover everything up.

Uh the motel is 96 years old.

There are wood structures on Pure and Beam foundations built during the Great Depression.

Every structure has a functional lifespan.

This property is simply at end of life, and the fact that they have done a lot of cosmetic work without getting uh a lot of the structural stuff taken care of like they should have.

Uh, I don't have a strong background in that area, but I worked in that realm when I was working.

Uh the fact that one of the commissioners mentioned about the vilation is very important with a peer and beam foundation.

So there's no ventation, there's going to be mold problems.

They won't be noticeable at first, but there'll be uh unhelpful situations for sure.

This is just lipstick on a this is just lipstick on a pig.

Uh that's all it is.

Um, and it's time for these structures to go.

We have dealt with them in our neighborhood for far, far too long, and we need some relief.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ms.

Peters.

Good morning, Commissioner.

Um, I'm Carol Peters, president of West Meadowbrook Neighborhood Association.

I'd like to take a moment to ask my neighbors who are here to support uh denial of this extension to stand.

Thank you.

I live in West Matterbrook and have for almost 50 years.

I've been president of West Manor Neighborhood Association for three terms.

And while I was on uh the board, I also dealt with this Eco Motel situation.

So that makes three terms for me as president dealing with ECO Motel.

Nothing presented today repairs the damage done to our community by these criminals who frequent this property and the owner who does not care.

Ecomotel is a bad neighbor, a dangerous presence in our community, and a magnet for crime.

No amount of cosmetic repairs fixes the blight that ECO Motel represents.

Three decades of escalating police and fire calls, open drug use, deaths from overdoses, assaults.

That's what we have on record for the ECO Motel.

We cannot rise as a neighborhood with ECO Motel operating here.

And I ask you today to deny this extension.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is the uh city ready to close?

The city had one more witness to call.

Sorry.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

Mr.

Patel, would you like to respond to any or the attorney respond to any of the uh interested parties comments?

I would.

Thank you.

Um the second person who came up talked about how long Mr.

Pell Patel had owned it.

He referred to a Manjulo Patel.

Um not all Patels are related.

Uh and Mr.

Chatel Patel hasn't been associated with this property until 2010.

It's a racist comment.

It's far-fetched.

The rest of the comments that I saw here, and it's understandable because there are things that this commission may not know, are related to complaints, not about the structure, not about whether or not we have a substandard structure, but instead to the clientele that uh are alleged to be of ill repute uh at this motel.

Well, one, we don't have any tenants or residents or guests at this motel.

Two, whether or not there's been crime or not has nothing to do with the question of whether or not a property is substandard and needs to be demolished.

These very same folks currently have a lawsuit pending over in district court against my client based upon their allegations that my client's property is a haven for people who act improperly.

Um that's being litigated right now, and that's the appropriate place to do it.

It's not before the building standards commission, although they believe that this is a great opportunity for them to win their district court case by asking this commission to act on the basis of a motion rather than by the objective standards set forth in the city's code of ordinances.

We are resolving everything.

We dispute that my clients' property is the problem.

There is a homeless encampment on several acres in between my client's property and a gas station.

Those homeless people are the ones that are the problem.

They're the vagrants who are coming on to the older ladies' property who were defecating and whatever else uh Mr.

Pham said that required uh officer to come organize that Saturday fence erection.

I'm happy for it, but that's why we've had to put up fences too.

We're a victim of it just as well, and that's all being litigated in the proper form.

But I encourage you folks not to be distracted by the question at hand.

And this is a building standards commission hearing on whether or not the the building is substandard, not whether or not the former guests of this property were people that these folks don't like.

Thank you.

Do the city have anything?

Yes, the city would uh like to recall Officer Wisnant to clarify two points that were brought up after her testimony.

Um first of all, Officer Wisney.

Um I believe you heard Mr.

Patel say that there were uh no units that were occupied.

Um is that true to your knowledge?

No, it's not.

Um, and why is that?

No, it's not um and why is that he has unit six and unit eighteen that have um tenants in them?

Unit six has been occupied.

I know of since the last hearing and in January.

Thank you.

Um and also he uh Mr.

Patel stated that he had requested um you and code to come out and inspect the foundation and you and he was um told that that was not possible.

Is that correct?

He did not request for foundation inspection being done by code.

What were his requests?

He requested that we come out and see what type of progress he's made.

Um so he wanted you to um inspect individual units as he updated them, is that correct?

He wanted the outside of the buildings and the um units inspected.

Would you have inspected the foundation issues if he had had repairs for you to look out on the foundations?

Yes.

So the the statement that you refuse to inspect foundation issues is incorrect.

Correct.

I don't have anything further for the officer right now.

Do you have any questions?

I I do.

Um there seems to be some confusion regarding cross-ventilation for this peer and beam.

My client testified that there is in fact cross-ventilation.

Do you disagree with that?

Are you asking me?

I am.

I'm not a construction engineer.

Well, this isn't about engineering.

This is about cross-ventilation on a peering beam.

Did you inspect the skirting around these buildings?

Um inspected the outsides of the buildings, yes.

Okay.

Can you are you able to tell the board that when my client says there is cross-ventilation on these buildings?

Are you able to tell the board that that's incorrect?

Yes, it's incorrect.

So you've walked the perimeter of all the buildings and you've seen no cross ventilation.

Correct.

You just told me you're not an engineer and you don't know what cross-ventilation is.

So tell me what you think it is now.

It's okay.

Is that what she said?

Are we allowed to ask a question during this?

We can't have not let him finish that.

Okay.

Yeah.

I I inspected the outsides of the buildings or the siding areas.

And no, I'm not an engineer.

And but yes, I do know what cross-ventilation is due to I'm a substandard officer.

Okay, because I could have sworn that you had said that when I asked you originally.

Um, to your knowledge, there is no cross-ventilation then.

No.

All right.

No further questions.

Where can you where is the cross ventilation on this picture right here?

Just so I'll know.

Not that one.

I'm just curious to do that.

So every building has uh uh concrete skirting, and we have a gap on the concrete skirting uh where the course when happens between one side to the other side.

So we haven't seen the whole concrete skirting.

We do left the gap uh inside an ADS.

You have a picture of that directly?

So I mean it's from we just the basic pictures of the whole property, so we don't have a direct picture of that, but we would be happy to present it or email it to the board uh if he could.

All right.

Any other questions?

Nope.

Is the city ready to close?

The city had one more witness.

Okay, okay, the city would call uh uh development supervisor Raul Pisina, please.

Morning afternoon.

My name is Raul Bisina.

Were you sworn in earlier today?

Yes.

Okay.

If you'll go ahead and state your name and you're with the city supervisor, inspection supervisor with development services.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Piscina, so would any kind of foundation repair require permits?

So on one of the site visits that we made, we did see deteriorating uh peers.

Uh what is we assume was termites, termite damage.

Uh at that time I did recommend that he get an engineer to take a look at it because that's not my specialty, but he needed to look at all the the frames and the beams and make sure they were structurally sound.

So and after that I told him once you get that, the uh engineer or the foundation company is going to pull the permit, do the work, then call in a final, and they uh submit a report, a full detail report.

So you advise that he have an engineer inspect, and then he would need a report sent to the city to pull a permit to have any repair work done on the foundation.

That is correct.

Uh and just to be clear, there were no permits applied for for any foundation mark.

As of this morning, I checked there was not.

Thank you.

Nothing further.

Go ahead.

Is it Mr.

Garza?

Cena.

Garcina.

Um the questions that the city's attorney asked you presuppose that the engineer found that structural work needed to be completed on this on these structures, correct?

In other words, if you don't understand my question, engineer comes out and says the structure's fine.

Yeah, you need to do some non-structural stuff, such as uh replace that wood on the side, then there'd be no need to request a permit, would there?

Right.

And so that explains why no permit was requested from the city if the engineer came in and found there was no structural problems, right?

That is correct.

No further questions.

Did the engineer say that?

You y'all have not given us that initial report, so we don't know what the engineer found.

The uh the initial report, I guess, were the recommendations.

It's my understanding, and I haven't read the final report line in verse.

Uh it's my understanding that the final report does find that the structure is fine.

But we're happy to submit and supplement that uh that initial report as well, along with the pictures of the cross ventilation and anything else that this that the board may request.

We're here trying to get this thing finished, get everything done, and we take what you guys say very seriously.

Thank you.

City have anything else.

Uh no, that's it.

You ready to close?

Um, yes, I am.

Okay.

Thank you.

Just briefly, um, this current case was opened.

Um, the first net force inspection was done in January uh of this year.

So we're here at almost eight months.

Um, and Mr.

Patel presented that he basically only had 30 days to rush and complete these um these uh cosmetic repairs that he has done.

He has stated that there was an initial engineering opinion that nothing um structural needed to be repaired.

However, nothing in the report that he presented today indicates that.

It only indicates that there was a visual observation um of what could be seen without any um demolition um underneath the cosmetic repairs.

So uh we have no evidence that any of the necessary foundation work that um was observed initially and what the initial order was based on that any of that was evaluated or resolved as needed.

Um he has continually stated the code refused to do any kind of inspections that he requested, and that was not true, and the city would ask would adamantly oppose any amendment to this because he has had months to address the issues that were brought to light in this case.

Um, and he has been less than forthcoming on structural issues that were that the initial decision was was based on.

Uh so therefore the city would request that uh this amendment be denied.

Thank you.

Uh board, we appreciate your time and attention.

I know this this is a serious matter.

My client takes it very seriously.

Uh obviously, uh my client has made great efforts uh since uh the board issued its original order.

We've done everything we could to try to meet the timelines.

Unfortunately, we were unable.

I find it to be a bit of a catch 22, right?

You give you ask for more time because 30 days isn't enough, but then the city stands up and opposes it and says 30 days is enough, and then when we try to hustle and get everything done, they say, Well, why are you doing the cosmetic repair before you're finishing other things?

Uh that seems inherently unfair to me.

And that's why we requested the additional time in the first place.

If we could have done this in an orderly fashion, then we could have laid everything out.

We would have done it critical path construction and have everything finished.

There are some gaps in our evidence.

I'll uh admit that based on the questions that the board members have had.

You've asked about the cross ventilations.

You've asked about the initial report.

How many times did the engineer come out?

We do have that information, and we'd be more than happy to supplement that today and get that over to you.

We have worked with the city, and we continue to work with the city.

That's what's going on here, folks.

The city has a new pilot program that came out, and I applaud it.

It's it's fine.

Where they have targeted four properties.

They targeted my client's motel, they targeted an apartment building, uh, maybe another motel and a in a gas station.

Okay.

And what they did is they came out with code, they came out with health, they came out with the police, they came out with everyone, and they cited every single thing they could possibly find in order to shut down what they consider a nuisance.

Okay.

That is fine.

It's the city's prerogative.

But this board's prerogative is not to shut down a nuisance, it's to determine whether or not a building is substandard and whether or not my client has made reasonable efforts in order to make the repairs within the time frame that was originally granted, and whether or not it the time frame that we're requesting is reasonable, which it is.

Same as my client.

My client's upset about that stuff too.

People are over, you know, defecating on my client's property.

We've had to put up the fences.

For whatever reason, this community thinks that we're the ones to blame about it.

We're not.

We suffer the same uh injustice from these people as they do.

But again, I want to remind the board that whether or not this is a nuisance or whether or not there's alleged criminals, even though my client denies he has anything to do with it, and we don't like it either.

That has nothing to do with the board's decision.

If the board is kind enough and gracious enough to get grant us the amendment as we requested, which as I said, we don't take for granted.

I know that they may be routinely granted, but there's no way I'm gonna tell my client that hey, we went ahead and filed an amendment request.

You can take your foot off the gas.

That's absolutely the last thing I told my client.

I told my client to be getting this done as fast as he could, and he's followed my instruction.

Now, could we have taken pictures?

Yeah, well, I mean, Mr.

Patel said on July 14th, the engineer came out, we didn't have the skirting put up.

It's skirting, too, by the way.

The skirting can easily be popped off.

It's not a structural component.

We're happy to do that.

Anybody could have done that.

Mr.

Garcina was correct.

They put him up here to tell you, well, hey, how come you didn't do an inspection of the structural work?

Well, it's because a permit wasn't pulled.

And why wasn't a permit pulled?

Because the engineer said we didn't need it.

So they're trying to back you into an idea that there are structural problems when our engineer says it's not.

We do have the report, we do have the initial, which I'm happy to supplement.

We do have the cross ventilation.

We just want to get this property where it needs to be.

I understand that certain members of the community, people that live in that area, may find objection to the motel.

Um it's not the motel's fault, and that's not what we're here about today.

So we would request respectfully 60 days, 60 days so that we can complete this.

In addition, during the 60-day period, we will submit over to the city development services and everyone else.

We will get reports, we will get pictures, we will do whatever needs be.

We're happy to provide the same to this commission as well, because we are working diligently and as quickly as we can to get this done.

So respectfully, we request that we've put in a lot of time, effort, and money to get it this far.

We're taking this very, very seriously, and we will continue to do so, and we request um your grace in giving us an additional 60 days.

Thank you.

One one quick question just to make sure.

So you're saying the foundation report initially said that there was no structural foundation on any of these buildings.

You mean problems?

You said no structural foundation.

I think you meant like there's this is a period it yes, structural, like so the on this picture up here.

The footer down on the very end that's not on the concrete footer, that was okay by the by the uh that right there was okay.

Just clarifying, because you said the struct nothing needed to be done.

So if we had to repair that, then we would not actually have that concrete footer.

I can see the question.

Yes, that's correct.

I'm sorry.

You said it was not an issue.

That wasn't an issue.

Okay, that's all.

Thank you.

Again, we'll we'll submit that we'll supplement that here today.

All right, at this time we'll close the public portion of the hearing and open it up for a motion.

I move that we deny the request for an amendment.

We have a second.

Second.

Any discussion.

All right, oh go ahead.

I feel like the city.

I had no, I I haven't been here since 2010.

But if this is a structural from the same minor I I agree with the city on this, I've got to rely on the information given.

I agree.

The only concern I have is that when uh when a permit is is filed, there's an inspect, there's work that gets done, and then there's an inspection that gets done before anything gets covered up.

When they do, they pour a concrete for a foundation, an inspector has to come out and do all that.

And there just seems like there's some gaps here.

So that's my only concern.

All right, ready for a vote.

This is a motion to deny the amendment.

Mr.

Castles.

Aye.

Ms.

Lane.

Aye.

Mr.

Leiden?

Aye.

Mr.

Black?

Yes.

Mr.

Juwali.

Yes.

Ms.

Dyke.

Aye.

Mr.

Lou.

No.

That motion carries six one.

Uh this commission has.

I'm sorry.

This commission has denied the request for an amendment.

Uh the owner, leanholder, mortgage year record have the right to file an appeal with the Tarrant County District Court within 30 days of the date the city mails a copy of the order.

Thank you both for coming in today.

Um at this time we will recess uh for lunch until we'll go till 105 so we can get moving on these these other ones.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

109, we'll go back into session.

We'll call the next case.

Next case, amendment, new case multi-family, HS 2664, 6301 Woodway Drive, aka 6327 Woodway Drive, 14 primary and three accessory structures, aka being lot three-c, block 200, wedgewood edition, an addition to the city of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas, according to the plot thereof, recorded in volume 388-52, page 96, plot records of Tarrant County, Texas.

Owner is Lorin Real Estate Holdings, LLC, lean holder is served first bank, Tex Mini and Contractors, LLC doing business as red carpet cleaning, and Linabarger, Gogan, Blair, and Samson LLP.

We have appearance forms from uh James Davis and Matthew Sykes.

And we we also have a uh statement from interested parties uh in support of denying the request.

And that's in the packet.

Yes, sir.

Oh my god.

All right.

Um Matthews, is it Sykes?

All right.

Uh since you're the lien holder here, we'll let you uh go if you'll state your name and city of residence.

What's up?

If you'll state your name and city of residence.

Well, my name is Matthew Sykes.

I live in Fort Worth, Texas.

I'm here on behalf of the lien holder, Service First.

Okay.

Um so this is an amendment request, so we all get to go first.

Let us know what the plan is and what you want us to know about the property.

Sure.

Well, I'll be honest with you, and I think it might help if I under if I explain some of the legal background on this.

Um, I I have not actually seen that amendment request.

Um, we uh service first has actually had a receiver appointed within the last 30 days uh to manage those these properties, and that's Mr.

Davis here.

So we're sort of hitting the ground running here.

Uh the receivership is entered by the 48th district court.

Um, I understand uh that since the receivership has been entered, Mr.

Davis and the property management company, which he's hired, uh Savoy has had an opportunity uh to go and visit some of these properties.

I understand that there is a fence that's being put up currently, and that they're also arranging, and I think have are close to a contract with the company to do security uh around the clock there.

But but like I said, the receiver's only been in place uh a little less than 30 days.

And um would like for Mr.

Davis to speak to that because he's more aware of uh the efforts that are being made are being made and what they're doing to kind of get these properties in a place where they're more useful.

So is he gonna be I you'll have to explain the receivership part?

I'm sorry.

Will he be the owner or is he the owner officially yet or no?

Or so I guess you're asking me a legal question, but uh I would say the question what he is is he is the receiver uh for the entity uh that that owns these properties.

Uh so that means that he controls them.

Um I I would not say from a legal perspective that he is the owner, such as it were.

Are the owners still around, or what's the deal with the owners?

Are they here today?

Or I I have not heard anything from them.

Um I I do not know what their current status is.

Uh I will tell you that this uh there were Mr.

Davis was not just appointed the receiver of this property, but of several others.

So thank you.

Thank you.

If you want to go ahead and state your name and city of residence.

Sure, yeah.

Good afternoon.

James Davis, uh Plano, Texas, and I have been appointed uh Matthew said, you know, uh less than 30 days ago as the receiver for this property, uh, as in addition to seven other Luran properties.

Uh four of those are in the Dallas Metroplex to at Alabama to in Louisiana.

Uh as Matthew also stated, you know, we do not come in as the owner, but we come in uh as being directed and asked uh by the court from service first because of you know various non-compliance elements in terms of what ownership has not done with these properties.

And uh we've it's been a little bit of a challenge, I will say, uh getting insurance in place, um, both property and liability, and that we have to do that prior to starting any action to secure and establish a plan for what we're gonna do with these properties.

As you all are well well aware, this property is in pretty bad shape, and my understanding has been for quite some time.

So our first steps after we finally were able to get insurance in place over the last week is to um secure the property and then begin the cleanup, put 24-7 security in place, uh board it up, and then develop a plan for what the disposition of this property will be.

It will most likely uh be a sale, a quick sale process.

Um at this point in time, we would most likely not be recommending that the lender spend the money to do a full rehab.

Um, as you well know, you know, a bank doesn't want to necessarily run a multifamily, they want to see a sale process happen to a you know qualified buyer quickly.

So that's most likely the case uh the path that we will take.

We have engaged Cushman Wakefield as well.

They will be the broker on this property.

So we're doing all of these things in parallel um to try to get the property secure under control, keep it safe, and then again develop that plan forward um and to do it quickly.

And I also just for the record, I do have a copy of the receivership order that I'm more to have more than happy to provide so that you have it on the record.

Do you want to see the do you need the receivership or I'm sorry?

Yes, it's already it's always on there you go.

Just so that we'll have it for the record, please sure.

So it doesn't sound like y'all have any plans to do anything with it but turn around and resell it.

Is that uh obviously we will need to secure it, clean it up, get it, you know.

There, you know, I've been over there, and it's completely, you know, all the windows are a lot of the windows are broken out, a lot of access, uh vagrancy in place that we would have to remove and again secure all of those buildings, and we would board it up and then obviously make sure that there's you know no other security and or safety risk on the property, and then add that 24-7 security.

That I can't tell you that we would then not come back with a plan of rehab if the bank so wanted us to do that, but it would most likely be to proceed with a sale process to get an owner who's going to do something productive with it versus you know, let it languish and sit for any other significant length of time.

Because that's what you know, we're here today because it's it was subcentered and hazardous.

Putting a fence around it, getting security, boarding it up doesn't resolve the substandard and hazardous aspect of it.

Correct.

So it doesn't sound like anything y'all plan on doing it.

What how much time were y'all asking for request 90 days again?

We've been involved with this very briefly.

Right.

So within the 90 days, it doesn't sound like there's any plans to try to make it no longer substandard and hazardous, only to kind of put security around it and board it up, correct?

I want to be completely honest and say I we want to fully assess.

We have not been able to get into every building over there because again, it's been it's not been safe, it hasn't been secure.

Uh, we need to remove the the folks that are there that shouldn't be there first.

I think once we're able to secure it and do a full assessment, which we've got construction folks, we've got everybody ready to go to get on site and then determine hey, here's the cost, there's what has to be done to either make it you know a leasable livable property again, and or the opposite of that would be hey, that can't be done.

We would need to do something else in terms of a teardown or or some other version of.

Um, but we can't determine that until we get it fully secure, which is in process.

And so that's why we're asking for that addition or this amount of time, so that we can put together a good assessment and plan.

Because again, we you know, we get handed these things.

Uh ownership typically doesn't provide a lot of assistance, as you would imagine, uh, in terms of the background.

Uh so we have to do a lot of that assessment on our own.

Is there anyone legally living there?

Or are they all no?

There is not.

It is not, it is not legally occupied.

There are no leases in place, it's all vagrancy.

You know when the last time it had someone legally there or a lease?

I do not.

I know it's been a substantial amount of time.

I do not believe ownership has had it in a leaseable condition for a few years, is my understanding.

Do we know how long the loot loop the real estate holdings has owned it?

Roughly, I I don't know that, but I can tell you, I believe the last tenants left uh earlier this year.

I want to say February, March, somewhere in there.

How long have y'all been on it with the mortgage as long as we've been on it?

With them as the mortgage E.

Uh as the mortgage E.

Uh Frank, uh well, again, we have a lot of these different uh learned properties, so I couldn't tell you exactly for this one.

But for some time, we we did not uh we weren't involved with the last hearing before this commission, though.

Okay.

Any questions?

The city have any questions.

Yes, thank you.

So you have no current plans to bring any of this up to a uh standard compliant building.

Until we can get into the building fully, I can't tell you what exactly that plan would be.

Our plan would be to provide that you know, full detailed assessment as what it as to what it would take to get it up to standard, up to code, and or again the opposite, saying, hey, that can't be done, or it's not financially feasible, so that we would then take alternative action.

And that's that's why we're asking for the time is because we need to be able to do that assessment, which we just haven't been able to do yet.

Uh nothing further.

Who do you know that uh there was a letter in here from the John Adams law firm?

Is that someone representing looks like you know?

Uh you're sorry, you're not a court up there.

No, it doesn't but uh yes, uh I'm aware.

Mr.

Adams, we filed this petition for receivership back in March.

He was their attorney, he has since withdrawn.

I have uh I I do not know what he represented to you, and I I just yeah, I believe he's no longer on the case.

I think he's the one that did the amendment request.

Right.

Well, again, I as I said, we we haven't seen that.

He he didn't copy that us on that.

Okay.

Uh commissioners, just for the record, um, the deed and the lien holders have been active since um oh okay, sorry.

Since uh May of 2022.

Okay, thank you.

The current owners since 2020.

Okay.

Any other questions?

City is or the city gonna present.

Yes, the city would like to call Officer Chris Weber to give an update on the case.

Morning, commissioners.

My name is Christopher Weber.

I am co-compliance officer for the city of Fort Worth Building Center's multifamily division.

Um I just would like to go over the updated status of the property since the last case.

Uh the case originated on September 16, 2022.

This case was initiated by Officer Keisha Thomas.

Notices were sent on March 27, 2023, February 7, 2024, May 2nd, 2024, and October 2nd, 2024.

Um there have been several fires on the property.