It's 2 02 and I'd like to call this meeting to order.

As of right now, we don't have a quorum, so we can't take action on this item today.

But we want to hear about this ordinance, and maybe we'll get some council members trickling in.

We have Councilmember Alcorn has joined us.

And let's go ahead and get started.

I'd like to recognize Councilmember Jackson to kind of introduce us to this ordinance and tell us what we're here for.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for um allowing me to present.

Or um to share my um background on this ordinance.

Um but before we get the public works presentation, I'd like to give a short explanation on why I brought this measure forward.

Um in my district, when a commercial building is vacant, it becomes a magnet for illegal dumping, graffiti, squatting, drug billing, it's all types of crime.

It becomes blighted.

And I've seen in other neighborhoods when businesses shut down their fence shut down and fence the property off, they avoid all of that.

And so this price when you what you would hear during this presentation is the challenges that this ordinance will bring.

Um what the challenges that um public works would have on the with this ordinance.

I also want us to consider as public works present um the challenges that our communities face with these buildings being open.

Um and so in your hands, you will see some pictures of some buildings that's in District B.

And um these are examples of vacant properties that has become a headache for um the residents within our district.

And we've had to clean up the tires.

We spend millions on cleaning up.

And so um, we don't have all the answers, but I think this is a critical, it's important ordinance for our communities, especially the communities that are dealing with the illegal tire dumpings and just this type of blight in the neighborhoods.

And so um just consider that as we talk about the challenges, everything that we come in contact with or you try to do is going to be a challenge.

But how do we move this forward um for the residents in my district and other districts in the city of Houston that's facing the same challenges?

So thank you.

Thank you.

Joining us is Vice Mayor Pro Tem Peck and staff from Councilmember Davis's office.

So without further ado, who would we like to hear from first, Councilmember Jackson?

Um I think we have a public director of the Heather Permit.

Welcome and please introduce yourselves.

Good afternoon.

My name is Rudy Moreno.

I am the deputy director within Houston Public Works.

I'm accompanied today by Chris Mr.

Christopher Shanahan, the interim deputy assistant director over community code enforcement.

Thank you very much for allowing us the opportunity to present and speak uh to the Prop A committee concerning the proposed vacant building ordinance.

I'm gonna ask that Christopher Shanahan do this presentation, and then we will be available for any questions that you have.

Go ahead, Chris.

Well, good afternoon, uh council members and committee committee members.

Thank you for having us today.

Um I can get uh next slide, please.

So uh as an overview of this proposal, it requires the property owner to fence the perimeter of the property within 10 days of the of the commercial property becoming vacant.

So the exceptions identified through the ordinance drafted or whether there could be an act of permitting uh with the project to uh perhaps rehabilitate the building or make modifications to the building.

Or if there's a determination made by code enforcement that there is active work underway to improve the property.

Um I guess uh perhaps maybe there's a viable lease tenant that would be moving in to remove that vacant factor from the property.

And then thirdly, there's uh whether there's council or mayoral uh unanimous determination to uh uh grant an exception of from the requirements of this ordinance.

Next slide, please.

So past practices within building and community code enforcement, there has not been a fencing requirement for vacant commercial buildings.

Um you know, routinely within the city of Houston, the thousands of buildings that we have, whether commercial and or residential, um I don't think we could actually measure how many buildings are actually vacant.

Um, but we have not had a an ordinance or procedure in place to require a vacant property or vacant commercial property to to be fenced off.

Next slide, please.

And so moving forward, we'll look at some potential ordinance impacts.

Next slide.

So some of the challenges if the owner does not install a fence around the property.

Um one of the first factors to determine is the vacancy status of the property.

So identified in the ordinance, we would have to establish seven non-consecutive days within a 30-day period to determine that the building is deemed vacant.

Um that there's a challenge that comes along with that to measure that, right?

And then I'm looking at recurring site visits within that 30-day period, uh, which is a allocation of my staffing and my resources.

Uh and then documentation with violation notices.

So we would have to actually determine that the property is vacant within at least seven different days within that 30-day period and followed up with appropriate documentation in the event that we needed to present this to a hearing official.

Uh the next section talks about property perimeter.

So multiple structures on the same property or parcel.

Um throughout the city of Houston, we have numerous properties that have multiple commercial buildings on the same piece of property, the same parcel.

I could use, for example, in an apartment complex, you may have 20 buildings on the same parcel or all addressed to the same uh same physical parcel address identified by different building numbers.

Um the way this ordinance is written uh describes fencing off the entire perimeter of the property.

So what I could, you know, an example I can give there is for instance, we have five commercial buildings on one one parcel, four of those buildings are occupied and in good status, and we have one building perhaps in the middle of the property that has become vacant for seven consecutive or seven non-consecutive days out of the third-day period, by definition, this would be required for us to fence off that property.

Um so then you can see that if if we're fencing off the entire property, now we're restricting access to those other occupied uh buildings on the premises.

So I think it would some of the value would be to establish property boundaries or uh maybe clarify the language in the ordinance as to a specific building.

Um another challenge that this is something that we routinely deal with on a daily basis within a community code enforcement and building code enforcement is uh the challenge to identify the owners.

A lot of these buildings and properties are uh in LLCs, so you'll have registered agents that may be not local to the area, they could be out of state, in some instances they're out of the country.

Um, and then uh tracking down those owners to make our legal notification to allow that due process to say there's a problem, we need you to to fix that problem.

Um certainly does pose an issue.

Uh for exemption guidelines, uh need documented criteria for exemptions and need a process for requesting an exemption.

And again, uh further collaboration with the legal department as we explore different alternatives uh for exemptions specifically laid out within the ordinance.

Um lastly we have fencing.

Uh we would have to identify vendor sourcing or vendor to install fencing.

Right now, uh within community code enforcement, we don't have a vendor or vendors that we routinely would use to install fences around a property.

So we're looking at some uh funding identification, where where's that funding going to come from in the in the event that public works has to install that fence around the property, assuming that we do not get owner compliance.

And then there's the ongoing fence maintenance.

So in the event that the city public works has to install a fence around the property, um, if the fence becomes cut, falling over from a storm or maybe a vehicle damage to it, then it's back on the department back on the city to make sure that fence is maintained and to secure the the that property, um, which again is another uh it's more resources, more staffing, more personnel, and it's again you can see how that can exponentially grow depending on how many fences or fenced commercial properties we had that the city was required to follow up and maintain.

If the fence becomes cut, falling over from a storm or maybe a vehicle damage to it, then it's back on the department, back on the city to make sure that fence is maintained and to secure the that property, which again is another, it's more resources, more staffing, more personnel, and it's again you can see how that can exponentially grow depending on how many fences or fenced commercial properties we had that the city was required to follow up and maintain.

Next slide, please.

So again, resource strain.

So within our dangerous building team, we have a substantial workload.

As I believe everybody here is aware that public works, as of July 1st, just took on the Don IPS team, which is now referred to as community code enforcement.

We are now responsible for overseeing and following through with the dangerous buildings for residential and commercial properties.

That team is currently staffed.

We have 14 out of 18 funded positions currently.

Adding this ordinance would increase an additional workload to address the concerns with fencing, as I could certainly see it could be a big problem across the city in the needs that we have multiple vacant commercial buildings.

Cost recovery, uh the ordinance identifies the ability to issue citations daily, $500 per day would constitute a new violation.

Those citations or monies recouped from those those citations go back into the municipal court.

We would if the city did have to install offense, we could engage or uh apply a lien to the property.

Um again, that's uh working with the legal department on that process.

Uh we would have to uh increase our cooperation with Houston Police Department on issuing of warrants to get on property in the event that we have no trespassing signs posted or um safety concerns for our staff inspectors.

An administrative and financial standard operating procedures would need to be identified for the department.

Um something of note of competing priorities right now with that we are actively working on.

As I mentioned, with the recent merger of Don IPS into uh public works, um we had inherited a massive backlog of code enforcement issues.

Um I think everyone here is well aware of you know the high grass complaints and the the trash and the debris complaints throughout the different council districts, and I promise you, we hear you, we see you.

Um we are chasing our tails, if you will, with the staff that we have to try to address these issues, to issue notices.

Um, and that number just exponentially grows daily, especially right now in the summertime.

We're in we're in the grass growing season and the rain hasn't been helping.

Um prohibited yard parking is a very another uh hot topic of concern.

There's been a lot of discussions about that.

We are working uh within the department, department leadership, and there's discussions along with Houston Police Department as well.

Um there's an additional additional item that has been addressed through a Prop A that we are working on in concert with everything else to address storage containers, uh storage containers on uh properties throughout the city of Houston.

Um of a very hot topic, if you will, of the apartments, the apartment standard enforcement committee known as ASEC.

We are actively working on that.

Uh that's a multi-department initiative where we are identifying what is uh being considered as a high-risk rental building.

Um HPW in conjunction with City of Houston Legal, Houston Fire, Solid Waste, Houston Health, are working uh on that ordinance.

We've been several months with that, and to get that thing up off the ground running, or we can start chasing down these habitual offenders of these apartment complexes that are uh causing a lot of grief for the tenants in the city.

And then lastly, we have the after hours task force.

Uh so building code enforcement, which is another team within our code enforcement group.

Uh we are working with Houston Police Department, Houston Health, ARA on the apartment or excuse me, the the nightclubs and bar uh enforcement for the a lot of these bad actors of these clubs up and down Washington, um, emancipation, Almida, and that's kind of been the uh initial focus right now uh in some of the different areas in the heights, another strain on resources.

Another strain on resources.

Uh exemption guidelines, we uh need drafted criteria for exemptions.

What exempt what exemption documentation would be required?

And then identifying consistencies in the usage or the application of this ordinance.

Next slide.

And so this slide is uh identifying our current resources within the community code enforcement team.

Uh we had referred to this slide uh I believe a week, two weeks ago in the service delivery committee meeting where we identified the needs for uh positions.

If you focus to the right hand side of this slide, you'll see the last two columns of nuisance abatement.

We have currently have 35 filled positions, 13 vacant, four unfunded, and we've identified a need for 51 additional positions just to address the nuisances throughout all the council districts in the city.

Um with this model that we work together to propose, um ideally that would put one to one and a half code enforcement officers uh boots on the ground in every council district, or excuse me, every super neighborhood.

So you could imagine with how many super neighborhoods you have in your respective council districts, we would have active code enforcement officers on the ground.

Um and that would be a much more proactive approach, I believe, to code enforcement citywide as opposed to being solely reactive or responsive to complaints that are received.

And then that last column there refers to our dangerous buildings team.

We currently have 14 filled, four vacant, three were unfunded as part of the uh voluntary retirement, and we've identified the need for an additional ten more positions just to uh combat our dangerous building problems, commercial and residential throughout the city.

And the next slide moves us into questions.

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll take some questions from the council members, and then also if you'd like to be a public speaker on this, the sign-up sheet is on that front table.

I'd also like to welcome staff from Councilmember Castillo's office, council member Evan Shabaz's office, Mayor Pro Tim Cassic Tatum's office as well.

So talking about this, and maybe this question is more for councilmember Jackson, but typically once a building has been determined that it's vacant, then the property owner would be required to put up the fence.

And so that cost would go to the property owner, hopefully, initially, right?

Um have you reached out to the business community or what organizations or groups have you talked to or have you talked to any stakeholders about this?

Um we've only we've only spoke with community members.

Um and I know our office has been working closely with Lick Legal and Um Public Works on this, on the language, but as far as um businesses, no, we haven't talked with business.

And um speaking with HPD, did they indicate that they thought that this would help reduce crime?

No.

No, because we haven't spoken Mary?

No.

Okay, yeah.

Anthony um was handling this, and y'all know he left me, so um, he was um talking closely with um the different departments, but um they did not insinuate that it will reduce crime, but it's common sense that it it will reduce crime.

Um and again, illegal dumping, because we we spending millions um in tackling illegal dumping, as you guys can see from the photos and picking up tires, and so um haven't talked with HPD, but again common sense.

Yeah, we've had some um businesses in District G where the business was vacant and then there was destruction to the property, graffiti, things like that, and so the business owner erected a fence, you know, probably thinking into the future that maybe we would be doing an ordinance like this, um, because and it did deter people from you know destroying the property while while it was vacant.

Um when we look at the at slide number two, and it says it requires a property owner to fence a perimeter within 10 days of vacancy.

So once code enforcement determines that the property is vacant, then within 10 days, how is that number arrived upon?

Do you know?

I would have to defer to the councilmember's office.

Yeah, I I thought you guys came up with that number.

No.

So I'm thinking, I mean, I'm thinking 10 days is too quick when I thought of like 10 days, you know, a person they still move in within 10 days.

Um but you know, coming up with a realistic number, 30 days, um, 60 days when dangerous buildings recognize that it's vacant and they need to be soon as they're notified that it needs to be um fenced off, um, but that will come once somebody recognize that it's vacant, you know, or they know that they're gonna be vacant and they are they um fence it off on their own.

So um I think the 10 days is is a little quick, I agree with you on that.

But coming up with the realistic time frame on that is critical.

And then you mentioned um on slide six about cost recovery and how potentially a lien could be put on the property to help recoup those costs.

But just to clarify, you said that even if a lien goes on the property and the costs are recouped, it would go back to the general fund and not specifically public works department, correct?

So uh if the department if if a if the if the city took action, we we fenced the property, we would apply a lien to the property.

Um I'm probably not the right person to talk about the the funding when a lien is paid back, but I'm under the uh at least the assumption that when that money would come back into the fund in which the department paid for.

Um my reference, I believe, was uh on citations, the issuance of criminal citation for failing to comply with the ordinance.

So um as it's written, we could every day every 24-hour period would constitute a violation that the fence was not installed by the property owners.

So we would have the ability to issue a citation for noncompliance at $500 per day.

Um now those five those fees are then captured and taken on by municipal courts, which that money does not replenish back to the department.

Got it.

Uh Vice Mayor Pro Tin Peck.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the presentation today.

And thank you, Councilmember Jackson, for bringing this forward.

Um so we already have an ordinance in place for health reasons why we would require a fence to be placed on on a property.

Would it make sense to just add some of these nuisance issues to that ordinance rather than then creating a whole new ordinance that includes you know going back out there multiple times to see if the property is vacant?

Like could we say some of these, you know, legal dumping or other nuisance issues violates a health reason why we would then require the fence to go up.

I think that's something that certainly could be explored, yes.

Um I'm not familiar specifically with that the health ordinance that you're referring to.

Is it Mike?

Yeah, I'm curious to know about the ordinance too, because we spoke with several people about the fence ordinance.

We'll we'll look into that too, because I know that we've had um properties in District A where you know the health department would go out or public works would go out and say that there's a health concern there and then require them to put up a fence.

So where they're getting that requirement from, I'm not sure.

We'll we'll look into that some more.

But if that is already the case that there's some kind of requirement out there, it might make sense to just add this to it rather than you know reinvent the wheel here.

So we'll we'll work on it with you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Alcorn.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I was gonna ask Mr.

Norris.

So yeah, so the the current dangerous building, uh the current dangerous building portion of the code uh requires that they secure the building.

It doesn't require a fence, it requires to secure the building.

Uh it can be it can be secured by a fence, but it doesn't say fence specific.

So I think you know, securing the building is basically you can either board it up, you you can fence it, you can do a number of things.

I'm assuming that when you guys are when you guys are checking out, but it does require it requires securing does require fence.

I think at one point it did uh a previous version did have a fencing, uh it they got rid of that for some reason 15 years or so ago.

Not quite sure uh why us those of us in the legal department maybe we have a discussion with public works about what changed 15 years ago, but the uh but it does not require fencing specifically.

So that that's the you know that it is required to be secured if uh for dangerous buildings, but it does not have to have a fence specifically.

So I think uh Councilmember Jackson is looking for a fences specifically to keep keep people off the property uh to keep from dumping other things.

So if I might that um that might be something worth looking into to see if instead of just securing the building, if we could add that back in to actually fence it off instead.

So thank you.

Did you have any additional questions, Council?

Yeah, I mean, because I'm I'm just looking ever since uh just since the Vice Mayor Pro Temp brought it up, I did I am finding something that says buildings that are unoccupied and unsecured from author unauthorized entry must be sealed to prevent access by squatters, children, and other uninvited people.

So I don't know, there must be something somewhere um about fencing.

Um and I was just gonna ask you, uh could it be and and thank you, Councilmember Jackson?

This is a big issue.

Um I was just at at Councilmember Huffman's event over off Highway 6, and many um the people complained about an abandoned coals right there, very near where we were meeting.

So I drove back there uh right after the meeting to see it.

There was like an alleyway in this big abandoned coals and sure and everything you are describing was everything that the neighbors were were complaining about.

Uh a great number of uh homeless, you know, people there were as illegal dumping, there were it was just a it was just gross.

And and so I get I get it, and Rudy, I want to ask you about your hiring, like uh is that going any better?

Are we still taking four months to hire people?

What what's what I mean we need to get some people on board?

Because this is going to be a continuous conversation of great ideas inability to execute because we don't have the people.

So can you bring me up?

The speed on how the hiring is going in code enforcement?

And when you say three unfunded, does that just mean three left because of the voluntary retirement, or are those extra ten now funded?

You have the you have the uh permission or whatever to to hire those ten and funding?

So yes, it they would be unfunded, they those left because of the retirement.

Right.

But so do you you need 10 only, or you do need 10 plus the three for the building.

Yeah, and are those funded positions like do you you have to go ahead to hire those?

No.

They're unfunded positions.

Okay.

Well, I mean, therein lies the problem.

This is a great idea.

We have a lot of reasons, challenges why there's no way we could do it right now.

Um I wonder if there was a a um instead of just like a requirement, all vacant buildings that there could be, you know, after a certain number of complaints.

I mean, we're not gonna go proactive, look for vacant buildings that aren't having any problems.

But if there was a certain number of citations which could trigger, you know, you you have you know, 25 red tags, you're building a fence.

You know, whatever whatever that number is.

I don't know, um, Mr.

Norris, if that something like that could be explored.

Um, but you know, it it's a big problem.

This is the way we're we're supposed to talk these things through and try to solve it.

And and maybe until we get the additional resources that we could limit it to um the worst of the worst, the ones with the most um you know egregious violations that we could require them to have fencing.

My two cents.

Councilmember Flickinger.

Thank you, Chair.

Um obviously this is a problem.

Uh I mean, your pictures demonstrate it.

Uh I occasionally drive through your district is my kind of alternative to traffic in 59 is bad.

Uh and I I've seen some of this.

Uh also there's a Ben of Benegins in Gulfgate in 45 that has forever been a problem that I think is actually getting cleaned up right now.

Um like this picture of the Popeyes.

Have you seen this with all the tires in the front?

Okay, tons of tires in the front.

If someone were to call you today, what tools do you have to get rid of this?

So we would actually get out to the site, we would have to document, provide notice to the property owner, um, give them due process to remove that violation.

Okay, and due process is that a compliance period.

So you have 15 days to remove the problem.

Okay.

So you send them a notice, you've got 15 days to remove the problem.

Right.

And if they do not, we are our next course of action would be issuing citations, which typically has very little effect, especially if we're writing to someone that we've never met, if it's an out-of-state property owner, um then the alternative is uh abating the the problem or ourselves, hiring a contractor to go out there and pick up the debris, remove it, dispose of it, and then file a lien against the property.

Okay.

So we file a lien against the property?

Yes.

And do we actively file these liens?

Is it a process that's followed?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

If I were to dump on your property tonight without your permission, I assume I've committed a crime?

Correct.

And you've been a victim of crime.

Me personally, if I dumped on your property.

Yes.

So to a certain extent, these people are victims of crimes as well, right?

Yes.

I I mean, I I think it's a huge problem, and it obviously needs to be cleaned up, but at the same time, you know, I have a little bit of sympathy for these people, considering the fact that they are actually a victim of a crime as well.

Yes.

So how good are we at collecting on these liens when the property is sold?

So at least for my experience, it's I don't really know how to measure that, right?

Um does anybody measure it?

We have not measured it since we took over that process within community code enforcement.

So um Don IPS had been applying liens to properties for nuisance abatement.

So that would be a question for Don as to whether or not they have been measuring it?

Correct.

Okay.

Um, we would assume that once if a property is for sale and then somebody goes to sell it or they do a title search on it, that's when the liens will come out, and then again, before a sale is done, that lien has to be paid back.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Councilmember Carter.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, this seems like a kind of an obvious place that we could work with Harris County.

You know, these vacant properties, assuming they are still paying taxes, right?

Um, you know, it it it seems that uh understanding that you would put a lien on them and we don't know if they're collected and all that.

But you know, um it just i I would be curious to see how many of these uh high, I mean these kind of high risk abandoned properties, what their tax rolls look like, what they look like on the rules, what their records look like, because it seems like seems to me that clearly um if they are paying taxes on the property, there's an arm there to um work with the county to enforce whatever uh ordinances would be in place, whether it's fencing, you know, I understand what you are saying, Councilmember Flickinger, regarding you know victim of a crime, but we know clearly we're trying to tackle problems, and don't worry, Rudy, I haven't forgotten about you on my uh demo of my building over there.

But you know, we know we're trying to tackle these issues as relates to specifically homelessness, right?

We have got people hanging out over there that we don't want either going into the building, you know, we know that TechSod owns the property, how do we tackle that?

Is it text out whatever?

But I think it seems to me it's uh a natural uh work with Harris County.

Uh you know, I don't know if anybody's ever investigated that.

Maybe we should, but it seems like a natural you're holding hands walking hand in hand, so why not do it?

Well, I know some other states, at least one other state, um, that uh we looked into there was a it was something passed by their State Legislature that said, you know, if you are basically a victim of a crime and you have to remediate your property, like put up fencing, things like that, there could be a one-time um tax um abatement to recoup those costs, but um, you know, obviously that goes through the State and things like that.

But yeah, it's a good idea.

Uh Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um.

So I have question for our City Attorney Norris.

Um in looking at the text of the proposed ordinance, are are there any legal issues or proof problem, potential proof problems that you were able to identify?

The with regards to whether it is legal or not, is has well the only thing that we discussed a little bit with with uh Mr.

Collie before he left uh Councilmember Jackson's office, I think uh was about the hearing.

Um there probably according to state law, there may need to be a hearing, and that and there is a hearing process for dangerous buildings currently.

I think that but we we kind of discussed with them a little bit about you know the hearing itself, but uh the uh that is that was the only discussion about the the legality of it.

I think at this point is more or less um the bigger issue is the practical uh being make sure that that the departments can actually work with, you know, do actually get it done in a in a time of manner.

So that's why uh usually when you guys submit things to us, uh first thing we look at is like, is it legal, can you do it per period?

Then the second thing is have you talked to the departments, and then we sometimes we'll have a discussion with the department and say, is this even feasible?

Because if uh if this language is going to require you to do XYZ thing and you you're saying you can't do it, then we need to know that beforehand.

Um and so we can kind of flush out things.

So that's typically the process.

But I think the I think legal legally uh the the you know, I think uh I forgot what it uh is it the um the property code I think uh may require uh that requires a hearing before you can do certain things uh as a local uh as it was the local government code, but that I think that was the the one question we had.

I think we would discuss that with Mr.

Collier.

So as I look at this requirement um not used for any legal business activity, um, you know, that's requiring the proof of a negative.

Um I think as as was mentioned, you know, this would require public works to go out probably daily to see if it still qualifies as vacant, and that's difficult given the lack of resources that you have in in public works.

Um maybe to make proof of that easier, you just take out the requirement of not used for any legal business activity and just go on the fact that it's been unoccupied.

But uh concern I have is that you know there might be legitimate reasons why a property is unoccupied.

Maybe they're maybe they're trying to lease it, they're trying to get a tenant, you know, and it will remain unoccupied for a time.

Should should we penalize them for it and make them make them put up uh a fence in the in that circumstance?

I am curious, and I'll direct this to either uh City Attorney Norris or my colleague, Councilmember Jackson, is this particular uh proposed ordinance modeled on any particular ordinance somewhere?

So, yeah, it's it's um a lot of the language users from the dangerous building section.

Uh it it's and it's I think it's proposed to go like pretty much right after it in that area.

So there is a uh there is currently a dangerous building.

I mean, we're currently a dangerous building, and when the conversation we have had with with uh public works is that typically the dangerous buildings, the ones that are that are gone after prioritized are the ones that are basically falling over, the ones that are true, you know, I guess truly uh structurally dangerous, and you know, there are potential problems where somebody might actually get hurt.

I think uh we're looking this is more forward-facing uh before you start getting into the the dumping and the and the um you know other you know, vagrant or whatever other issues that come with with vacant buildings generally.

I think this is a little bit more forward thinking.

And I don't I don't think that has been the the biggest priority, and that's that's what it sounds like.

So I'll go back in the queue.

Are there any other cities that have enacted a similar ordinance that you know of with uh we I hadn't seen anything specifically on from another another city of the I mean a lot of people do have dangerous building uh provisions.

This one I had not um seen any other I hadn't seen any other model that was that this was you know to to base that one on specifically not right offhand, so no.

A staff from Councilmember Davis's office.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um it's good seeing you gentlemen.

Uh we've uh councilman Davis on behalf, his behalf at large too.

You have helped us with a couple of constituents as well as a civic neighbor uh super neighborhood and civic club.

Um before I ask my question, one of the things council member always say, I know your job is somewhat challenging code enforcement as well as permitting, because we don't have zoning, and that's you know, make things challenging.

Perhaps we have to revisit that uh issue.

But my question is, um Councilman Davis was at a concern um citizens in action uh meeting, and he was just thinking outside the box, I know money is strapped, but have you guys ever like kind of collaborated with HPD?

You you don't have enough people to maybe get drones, um that way you can see who's committing illegal dumping, the vagrancy issue as well as you know folk coming in people communities, uh putting up buildings and whatnot that they don't want there and that kind of thing.

So have you ever thought about collaborating with HPD for drones?

So with respect to drones, I'm not sure that we have gotten to that point, but there's constant comm uh collaboration between us and HPD, um, mainly the PYPs, um dangerous buildings, new sense abatements.

So we are constantly in discussion with them.

We can add drones, and if we need to have that discussion related to that, we will.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, sir.

Thank you.

Um and again, thank you all for um the presentation and for working with us on this.

Um I do want to point out that, you know, as a homeowner, we have a responsibility to keep our yards up.

So as a business owner, you have they have a responsibility to keep their property up in neighborhoods.

And so um I don't think it's acting too much to put a fence up if your property is going to be vacant for two years.

Uh, you know, are you trying to sell it?

You know, that's your property.

You should take pride in your property and and want your property to be safe, just like we want our neighborhoods to be safe.

So just trying to be proactive to put something on the books.

I know some developers in our district there they put up these yellow cones barricades, and it just make it worse.

You know, it just is not very nice looking.

Um it makes the neighborhoods leak look worse than what it already does.

And so, but I did want to point out on the multiple owners, like if it's a property that have multiple businesses, um, of course, I think those properties would be exempt.

Because if you have multi five businesses on one property and the four proper businesses are operating, fully operating, and one business is not fully operating, they do not qualify.

But for the standalones like this family dollar has that has been vacant for over a year, you know.

How are we having those businesses?

Just, hey, just put up a fence, and when you sell it, take it down.

Simple.

Um so I just think this is critical for our neighborhoods and just to kind of keep our neighborhoods intact and and of course hold people accountable when they own property in the city.

Thank you.

Councilmember Flickr.

Thank you, Chair.

What exactly qualifies as vacant?

So as defined in this ordinance, uh a structure platted or used for commercial purposes that has been unoccupied and not used for any legal business activity for seven non-consecutive days in a 30-day period.

So if I'm closed Saturday and Sunday.

I guess that's one way to look at it.

Yeah.

I mean, so it I think we would I'm not sure why we would use non-consecutive.

It would make sense to me that you know, if we think of vacant, it's going to be consecutive days.

Right.

It'll be vacant.

Yes.

So I I think we should certainly change change that piece of it.

Kind of going back to this picture of this Popeyes.

So if we put up a fence and it deterred the dumping from occurring there.

Do we think the person or persons that dump these tires would dispose of them properly?

Or are we playing wack-amo?

To be honest, I think you're playing whack-a-mo.

Um in a perfect world, you would hope that somebody would do the right thing and dispose of it properly.

Um, but what's to say that that's just you're going to turn you deter you for dump from dumping on this property and then just move next door.

I mean, I would think if this is my behavior, it's my behavior.

Right.

I mean, yeah, if you're a criminal, you're a criminal.

Uh it's just you or you have that criminal mindset to go dump on someone's property.

I think that's pretty bold.

And although I I think it would probably look better dispersed everywhere than this large accumulation, you still got the same problem just spread out.

Right.

Um I just really think that with the tools we have today, getting outside vendors to come clean it up, putting liens on the property, collecting those liens, I think may be our best bet.

I mean, I'm curious as to how long these tires have been here with this Popeyes.

We cannot those up.

You know how long they were there.

They were there for.

Um they were there for how long those tires were there?

Probably about a good dump, we'll clean them up and then they'll dump them again.

So it was like ongoing for years, a couple of years.

Okay.

So I mean, or when your hot teams do that, do we charge through a lien?

No.

And I think then we yeah, they don't charge still a lien, but it should be a lien on the property when our team go out and clean it up because that's money we're spending.

Yes, yeah.

Agreed.

I agree.

So we should make sure that that's an ordinance.

Thank you.

Council Mayor Ramirez.

Um thank you, Madam Chair.

And uh just a question for my colleague, Councilmember Jackson.

So this proposed ordinance would address vacant commercial buildings, um, but I know that in many areas, vacant uh lots and vacant residences are are also an issue.

Any any uh particular reason you're going after commercial buildings and not vacant lots or vacant residences.

Well, because we're we're talking commercial, but uh commercial vacant land uh would because the grass can be overgrown, can be included.

We wasn't just excluding it just because um but we were just thinking about the buildings.

Um but I think it makes sense to add business land, and then as far as residential, we didn't get into the residential item because I'm sure it's something already in place um for residential neighborhoods.

Um so we were just focusing on the businesses.

And and if the other types of properties, vacant properties.

I think we need to think about where we would draw the line.

You know, should we require owners of lots that have been vacant for an extended period of time to erect defense across the city?

You know, where should those lines be drawn?

But anyway, thank you.

Staff from Councilmember Castillo's office.

Thank you, Chair.

You mentioned uh about establishing an after-hours task, or that was something that you had uh issues with wanted to ask if you um when you're requesting the 51 additional positions for nuisance abatements and the 10 positions for dangerous buildings, could any of those be requested positions to be designated for those that task force?

Um the reasoning being is because we have a lot of issues, like with violations of Chapter 42, um where constituents are sending pictures, videos uh to our office when we report them to the department, uh the department says that although the issues are being witnessed pictures and videos to our office, that they still can't be enforced because it has to be uh personally investigated by the department staff.

So then that is like an issue where staff doesn't go after hours, the issue is persistent.

So would that be something that could happen?

Yes, and uh specifically to uh on the concern in what you are speaking on.

Um I know I did provide an answer.

Um I believe Director MacIn with your office was that last week?

Okay.

Um I think that was one of the questions posed about providing an after hours uh code enforcement.

Um and that's certainly something that we're open to.

Right.

So we are what I was referencing in here on this after hours task force um specifically geared towards the uh with HPD's club unit for the bars and nightclubs that have been habitual bad actors through the city, which you have a lot of increased crime and several other nefarious issues that are curbed from that.

Um but yeah, I mean, so adding this number of staff would increase our effectiveness in code enforcement holistically within community code enforcement to address your high grass weeds, trash on property, dangerous buildings, uh junk motor vehicles.

Um with the evolution of PYP where that responsibility ends up falling, I can't speak to today.

Um however, with the different multiple initiatives, we have identified the need for at least 61 more bodies in order to maintain the volume of complaints that are coming through 311 every day to be effective and then provide more of a proactive approach to code enforcement.

And then I I'm not sure if the question was asked or if I just didn't hear it properly, but you get a 10-day window to fench the property after it's been reported vacant, or is that something that we're we're trying to work out?

So once once they have qualified as a vacant commercial building and they've been vacant for seven non-consecutive days in a 30-day period, notice is then provided to owner or ownership of the property, they have 10 days to fence the property.

Okay.

After that 10th day, so then on the 11th day, then the enforcement would start with the issuance of citations.

Um and then the course at what point do you draw the line and say now the city needs to take action?

Right.

Because I know we had a property on Jensen that just got cleaned up, and it took roughly two to three weeks on a city-owned property to get a fence up.

So on a city-owned property, it took two to three weeks to get a fence up through a different department.

I don't know if you know the 10 days pretty feasible.

I don't just wanted to ask that question.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

And this question is uh more for legal, but in the ordinance language under Section 10-1003, it says the fencing requirement in this article may be waived for a specified property or properties if the mayor and city council unanimously approve a written resolution granting such an exemption.

Umanimously seems like a a pretty high bar.

Are there other um written resolutions or approval of written resolutions that require unanimous vote by council?

And uh uh and I think I can't remember if that think that language was was uh there.

And I think I can't remember if that think that language was was uh there.

One of the I think one of the suggestions when discussing what what um with Mr.

Collier was possibly uh instead of even having council vote, even the council vote itself, maybe even possibly have a director.

I guess the city approval, I guess is the idea whether it has to come through council, which may or may not be the thing to do, or maybe uh it comes through uh the the departments that actually have to uh that actually have to do the addressing of it.

Um that that's still up for discussion of what you know what would be considered city approval on allowing uh the lack of fencing in this regard.

So but yeah, uh just city approval, I think was the idea.

So with it may or may not have to be the council, it could be what it could be a different, it could be department specific because I know you guys getting votes is always tricky.

So especially for individual properties, but it could it could go through directors or whoever whoever else will be the the most ideal version uh the closest to the problem to actually address it from the city.

Councilmember Alcorn.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh I just want to make sure I have all the staffing stuff straight because I was at the meeting a couple weeks ago, but I can't remember uh all the different um you can put up the staffing slides again.

Um I think it I can't remember what slide it is, but I'm on your one from a couple weeks ago uh when you were at service delivery committee.

Um but of all these needed, can we put that one up, James, if you would wouldn't mind that slide?

It doesn't matter.

Um just uh on of all those uh staffing needs.

I think some are funded, right?

Some are you're hiring for, right?

Like on the nuisance and abatement ones.

Remind me, I just want to make sure like what's not like on all those bottom ones need, need, need, need, need.

Are those are you hiring for those?

So those are additional needs.

The 13 that you're seeing 13 vacant, we are actively pursuing filling those positions.

Okay, so the vacant ones for nuisance abatement and dangerous buildings you're hiring.

That's correct.

Okay.

It's the process.

It's the additional need 51, need 10, need one that you're not funded for.

It's correct.

Because they these aren't really positions that are paid for with like permit fees that you operate on, right?

I mean, this is like nobody applies to to be a bad actor and you know whatever.

You don't can make any money.

You're not paying, you don't have the y'all are kind of an enterprise fund with the building inspection fund, and there's no really we we moved everything over here to get things get this off the general fund ledger, but you you don't have the funding, you know, for for these positions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um this has been a really good discussion and um thank you for bringing this forward.

It seems like there's a lot of great ideas out there and that this ordinance needs some work.

And just to clarify, you know, your position, you're not here speaking against this ordinance or in favor of this ordinance.

You're just laying out what some of the challenges may be, you know, at this point if we go forward at this point, is that right?

That's correct.

Yes.

Seeing nobody else in queue, I now want to open it up to public speakers because the people are the city.

Let's hear from Dominic Mazoc.

Oh, he's not here.

Okay.

Well, then um, would anyone else like to speak on this ordinance from the public?

Okay, seeing none, I want to thank everyone for your attendance and your participation in today's meeting.

The time is now 2.56 p.m.

We are officially adjourned.

Please look for a communication from my office for the next scheduled meeting.

And as a reminder, this committee meets only upon receiving items for consideration.

Thank you for coming.

The people are the city.