If we can let's call to order the administrative services committee uh for the city to address uh the ordinance that we have before us and I forgot a number already, uh, but it's called the vacant strike structure registry, which we've met on once before.

Uh there seemed to be some still questions after the last council meeting and council pre-council meeting where we were kind of looking over this, and we decided to come back to committee to look at a few things.

Uh I'd like to pick up where we left off.

Uh, but before we do that, I've had several questions and several people called me over the last five days asking bunches of questions about this, but I've had two property owners who've called who had very big questions about this.

So I said today that I'll allow five minutes for the property owner to address us before we actually got started.

Uh Ms.

Mr.

Townsend is sitting in the back back here.

And if uh you'd like to come to the podium and discuss some possible issues that you may have uh with the council before we actually get through this.

Some of the things I think we've already addressed, but it'd be nice if they could hear from you.

Please take the podium up there and hit the mic and talk to us about your concerns.

Yeah, thanks.

Thanks a bunch.

I didn't know I'd get to go first.

So this is great.

Um, I'm I'm a property uh licensed unlimited general contractor in Alabama.

I've got two properties in downtown mobile, uh, five total in the Broad Street loop.

Two uh everybody's happy about they're developed out.

They uh one was uh developed in 2003, it's 459 Dolphin Street.

It's a uh historic tax credit project, it's fully rented, it's doing great.

The other is a lot, and then there's three buildings that are tied up.

One is a regulatory issue, the building's too big, it's also in downtown mobile.

We we're caught in the uh the if you have over 99 occupancy, you have to go before the planning commission.

We've tried three times, and and really to kind of back up, I think it's a great idea, my personal opinion, to have a registry for vacant buildings and hold people accountable, if that's the right word, but at least uh a little bit of additional pressures.

There's a cost to mobile, there's a cost to the citizens that these buildings aren't being developed out, and then it's like how to tweak some of the wording so it doesn't go too far.

I've I've only been on it for about a day, but the large building that we can't get developed that we've been denied three times since 2014 is about 50.

This as written, and Mr.

Carroll is great.

We talked for 20 minutes yesterday.

He went through line by line and and kind of got me on the right track for some of the things that I was reading.

But my quick read is our initial outlay, it'd be a thousand or fifteen hundred for the registration.

It'd be uh the insurance is like three to four thousand.

This is every year.

The fire monitoring is about ten thousand.

That's so that's initial.

The electrical, once there's a comment in there about and and this goes to could I please humbly suggest some language?

That this is this is all I'm asking for in this whole thing because some of them, when you take them out into how they can be interpreted, uh it can get expensive quick.

So we we we're looking at 15,000 on one building every year.

No, I'm sorry, initial, and then about six to seven thousand.

That's for a 10,000 square foot building.

I love the idea of registering.

Um it uh if that and then and then kind of jumping aside.

One of the buildings, two of the buildings we have are from the Hoffman fire.

Uh, we purchased them after the fire.

They did substantial damage to our building, and uh and I could be would be happy to speak on anything about that, but I don't think anything in here would actually have prevented it because uh poor Mr.

Hoffman had been deceased and the estate wasn't really actively managing the property, so they had more property than they knew what to do with the city had put uh they had done everything regulatory that they could do, and then it uh it it just wasn't the enforcement was the city was taken over, taking charge of the building.

There's a big hole in the back.

I have a picture of it because we we commented on it for five years, and uh great.

I didn't bring it.

I'll show it when I leave.

But but uh it was a hole that was never covered, and apparently a vagrant got in and caught it on fire.

And there's nothing in here that would ever prevent that from happening.

So I'd love to get a chance to just suggest some language to tone down some of the the total costs that because I can quickly get to what these costs are, and then I'm I'm all for the registration.

Uh excuse me, question.

I really appreciate you coming down here.

Uh the number that you have on the monitoring for the fire alarm, $10,000, uh, is that per year?

No, no, that's the initial that includes there, there's language in there that says, and and if it relies on, I'm paraphrasing relies on electrical, then the electrical must meet mobile code.

That would involve a lot of people have maybe five 10-year-old panels, which we do because we have it, and and by the way, and Mr.

Carol and I talked about this.

If if you're a developer trying to get a tax credit, it's there's a requirement that you have to spend all this money in five years.

So you Mr.

McNair, okay.

He can he can he can confirm this.

A National Park Service tax credit, you've got to spend it all in five years.

And we've been kind of forced to spend pretty good chunks of money because we can't get one of our buildings approved.

So we we know that our electrical needs to be upgraded, but we don't really want to make that spend until we have the bigger project approved because we can get it captured in the tax credit, which pays all the investors off better.

More people want to come to Mobile and do more developments when when we you know get rewarded for for being smart with how we spent the money.

So does that answer the question?

The so it's about uh the 10,000 includes probably three to five thousand in electrical, and that's a very quick number.

You know, I've only had about 24 hours to look at it.

I apologize.

But okay, and that's you said that's per year or one time.

One time, and then at probably six to seven, six to eight thousand per year.

The insurance was like three to four thousand.

The uh registration was which is kind of a good idea.

I mean, I'm torn if if this went just as it as it would, a lot of times the things you don't like ended up being wonderful, and maybe it it causes a lot of mobilians to fix their properties up, and maybe that's a plus.

But uh, so I kind of didn't like the graduated schedule you all had.

You had it 1500, then the next year it was 2,000, 3,000.

But then again, that's adding some pressure to people to actually to get out there.

One thing we thought about, and I'll get this to you, you know, in in some language you can look at is maybe rebate back for developers that actually do it.

Um we're tied up on two the Hoffman buildings.

The engineer we originally hired did not want to do anything other than tear the whole buildings down.

So we uh we had to find an engineer who had dealt with historic, Mr.

McNair, I'm sure can attest to this.

The design professionals, if that's not in their forte, they don't like looking at at 150-year-old brick that got burned and and making a uh a load-bearing decision on it.

So um we had to we had to switch out engineers that slowed us down tremendously on those two projects, but we're not really worried about uh two of them.

It's the third building that is still hung up where it's too big for the area, we can't get it approved, and we're gonna probably continuously be dinged.

But anyway, the 1500, 2500, 3500, that graduated scale.

If you could get it all back, uh if you got the buildings developed, if you had some exceptions, and I and Mr.

Offenbach and I were talking about it, and it sounds like y'all are on on that wrap road.

Well, I've talked to him about it.

I also talked to Paul Carbo about it uh last week and other people here, but when I read these revisions, it's still not in here.

So when you told me last night that it wasn't here, it's still not here, even though we have talked about it.

Uh asked for the same language that's in nuisance abatement when the developer can provide a schedule to the city as to when certain things were happening, and as long as the developer is making progress towards those, then the developer is not fined.

But as of right now, in the world that we we in the world that you live in, then you would constantly be fined if those things were not done or scheduled because of delays in the project that we can't attest for or we can't see.

So there needs to be some language there, and I agree with that.

And I think that David has agreed to that already.

And I think some other people may have too.

I haven't talked to everybody, but I agree with you there.

Is there anything in this though that if you could not meet the four-year time span, would if you were a smaller developer, would cause you to have to sell the property because of the way the fee structure is set up.

And you you knew you know you're gonna get there, but because the way the fee structure is set up, is forcing you to get rid of or sell your property.

And and that's the thing that I'm most concerned about.

Could you talk to that, please?

Well, and and uh my partner, business partner and I talked about it because we're both kind of on board with it.

Um the uh you know, tightened language and exceptions, but then Ms.

Well, to talk to your point, it seems to me like if you could hit a sweet spot of cost to the building owner of like a thousand to three thousand a year, um, that that's where you want to be.

This 10,000 starts to get you may you may end up with a lot of city lean buildings, you know, and a lot of fights, and that's and and once you get into code issues like um mentioning the fire monitoring.

You and I, you know, we we had it we talked in Wordsmith, there's a difference between fire suppression, fire monitoring, and that's definitely true, and the suppression costs a lot more.

That's the sprinklers and things, but but just the monitoring, you've got to have new equipment.

They the the folks, there's three or four guys in mobile, good guys, but but they know the code and they will make sure you spend the money it takes to meet the code, and it it will push it up pretty quick.

Um anyway, that uh that's my thought is the sweet spot would be a thousand to three thousand.

That's everything, including the monitoring and the let bring it up to code.

You won't get there with the monitoring.

That that would push you up substantially over.

You start getting into code compliance issues on a building that really never had an architect and funding come in and actually do a proper project.

Yeah, it was kind of piecemealed in.

Yeah, I I didn't articulate that very well the last time we met.

I mean, it's almost impossible to bring uh the electrical up to code and then have all the wiring run right, knowing that you're gonna have to tear it all out to redo the building.

And that's a big cost too that you have to consider.

Now, if the city uh, and I'm talking so that everybody's hearing me, uh, if the city would be amenable to an electrical system that was powered uh or or powered to a point to where you're not bringing everything up to the IBC, then have it work where it was monitored.

I think that may be okay too.

But how do we do that?

And that would have to be under the discretion of the code enforcement officers and how how we get there.

And that'd have to be some written into this some kind of way to make sure that we're not uh inadvertently causing a lot of cost to the developers or to the builders or the property owners.

But we do need a system that's monitored, you know, there's no way it cannot not have power because if it doesn't, then it we couldn't monitor it, couldn't call the fire department.

And I I prefer a system that calls the fire department direct or the police department direct as opposed to having to do that.

No systems are now wireless.

Now on the insurance part of it, I mean, once we buy property uh as developers, we're required by our own insurance companies to immediately put insurance on the buildings when we own them.

Yeah, yeah, right.

That's if we mortgage them.

So we're immediately required to have general liability and insurance on the building.

So the developer should already have those, unless it's a property owner that does not have a that has had a building forever that doesn't have a mortgage on it, that's just refusing to do it.

And I think that's more directed at a property owner that has owned the building forever and does not have a mortgage on it, who just refuses to do that.

Yeah, that's I see what you're saying.

Because you're you're kind of looking for uh or um other clues that that uh whether or not uh an owner is ever gonna do something to the property, right?

And so I I got you.

The I I would just say like because you don't always have to fire sprinkler, you don't always have to fire monitor, you know, you know, this with projects.

Some of the small buildings, I think it's like 75 feet.

If you can get someone to an exit in 75 feet, you don't have to fire sprinkler.

There's there's you have to have exits in certain locations, uh, the hallways to the stairs have to be certain widths.

Right.

That all goes to finished product though, but I think they address the smaller buildings versus the larger buildings on the fee schedule.

Now the council has discretion on a fee schedule, and I think we may need to look at that in some kind of way.

Well, I was just saying, just to finish, and I'll be done.

Uh, that the fire monitoring may never need to go in some of these buildings, the smaller buildings.

So they would be uh a smaller building tasked with fire monitoring when with if they actually do the development, they may have never needed to fire monitor that that building.

That's that was my point.

Chief, what do you think?

Yes, sir.

That's correct.

And that's so okay, I got you.

That's correct.

So that wording, do we need to include that wording in here about the smaller buildings that he's talking about now?

Because I understand what he's saying, but last week there was nobody else in here to back me up.

So I'm I'm I'm understanding, and I'm asking you now.

Does that language need to be included in this in this ordinance?

Yes, sir.

So that is correct.

With there's certain occupancy types based on the assembly, if it's a business that requires and then the number of occupancies in that would require a fire monitoring or a sprinkler system.

So there's different variations to that with the code itself.

Um, but I think the intent of this ordinance is to if that building is vacant, you have to have a monitoring system in there because there's nobody there to let you know that there would be a fire.

Whereas a smaller business that is occupied, most people are gonna get out and they're gonna notice that there was a fire in that building.

Does that make sense?

Uh required by the International Fire Code 2020 edition 901.6 and NFPA 72.

So that would meet that exemption under that rule anyway.

So and just one other thing to go back with with the vacant structures with the Hoffman furniture.

That in section uh 52-209, it talks about number one, the vacant structures being secured all the way around, so that those holes would not be in the building, and that this ordinance would have helped correct that one, you know, one incident.

I would we also required under nuisance abatement to secure properly the entire building under the same statute and not just this.

No, so we're not nuisance abatement when we have the city when we have these properties, they don't have to be 100% secured.

We are not required as the city to do so.

No, no, no.

I'm talking about the owner.

We the city can require the owner to that property.

Yes, sir.

That under news abatement, the city can require the owners to do the same thing that we're requesting here and completely have the building totally secure.

So when you say we required, you're talking about owners.

Yes, we're requiring the owners to have the building secure.

That is correct.

The city is requiring owners within the Hank Aaron loop to do so.

And under nuisance abatement, generally, that's for the entire city.

That's right.

Yes, but it's all we already have an ordinance in place that requires them to do that, is what I'm saying.

Outside of this new ordinance, there are laws that already that we can already enforce that would have prevented that if we had a known there was a hole in the back, and we it was reported and it goes to the proper channels, then that could have been issued for the building to be properly secured under this abatement.

So I will tell you this two things.

One generally nuisance abatement does require such, but that is not unique to vacant vacant buildings.

Um, how we it's not unique to vacant builds.

I mean, if it's anywhere, we have to secure it.

That's exactly what that's that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, that's exactly so.

There's already ordinances on the books that we could be using and enforcing, and there are others that we'd also could be using enforcing.

Now, I'm not saying that we're not gonna incorporate it into this, but I'm saying that we we already have ordinances that we should we could be using to prevent what he was talking about.

So the short answer is not all the time, so no, but I'll let Mr.

Roberts actually fire department can cover this more.

But the the one of the primary focuses of this ordinance would be that a lot of downtown buildings are different code, you know, 1952, 97 code, 2000 code.

This standardizes the fire requirement for all buildings downtown.

Correct.

And again, just because the building is now vacant, and if that next door neighbor has a building code because they have not upgraded anything past 50 percent of the value of the property, now their building code and and fire code is reduced because they don't have to meet that based on the building type.

But a neighbor that comes in does a remodel of that complete building, they're gonna have to increase to that fire code that meets the current level.

Um so, and I know that probably goes against with what some of this is looking at, but the intent of what the ordinance is is to get that early detection because when it comes down to life safety for the firefighters or for the civilians, when we get the early detection, that's what's gonna benefit the citizens, and it also can reduce the property loss to the downtown area, you know, with the Hoppin furniture with that building fire, we were very blessed to have a quick response and great crews that got down there and put it out quickly and did not get the entire block.

So what says that that and that happened, I believe what nine o'clock.

So there was a lot of activity down there, you know, in the middle of the night, when things can go a lot longer, is when this is going to be more beneficial.

Councilman, good afternoon.

The uh there's a few points I wanted to address as well that are already in the ordinance, the uh draft version that uh addresses some of the concerns from the property owner.

If you turn to page three, section C, you see number two there, buildings under construction or property that in the reasonable determination of the code official is being actively renovated, rehabilitated, et cetera.

So we put that in there because of many of the reasons that you heard today, because rehabilitating historic property, especially one that's been vacant for you know upwards of 10, 20, some some of these properties up to 50 or more years.

It's slow, it's complicated, and it's expensive, and we appreciate that.

So you've got to look at it from the perspective of life safety, which you're gonna hear a lot about today, but you're also going to hear about personal responsibility.

But we don't want to penalize people.

So you know, the gentleman brought up that maybe they don't have a tenant yet, but they're working on it.

If they've applied for tax credits, state and federal.

There's a process there.

Those are exactly exactly the kind of things addressed in number two under section C, where the code enforcement division can, if there's proof of that activity, then that is proof of progress.

That is proof that they're actively working on the project, they're actively searching for funds, incentives, they're working with an architect, they have drawings, maybe they've been to the ARB.

Those are the kind of things we're looking for because we're not trying to catch anybody here, we're trying to encourage economic development in a way that is beneficial for the downtown, but also uh beneficial for life safety.

You know, those are the two kind of ways to look at this.

Um thank you, Mr.

McNair.

But um, to get to that point, you may own the building four years before you ever get there.

And that's the point that we're trying to establish.

Uh as this this as Mr.

Townsend has stated, he's on the building now for what a year, maybe two, but he doesn't have his first drawing done.

He doesn't have all that stuff done, but he has planned to put together his capital stack to get everything together.

But in the meantime, we're going to be fine in him and penalizing him as he gets prepared to get the project done.

He's purchased the project, but now he's trying to raise the funds for it.

Now, what I suggested two weeks ago was is that we add the language that allows uh developer or owner to put a schedule together the same way they would doing nooses abatement if we're going to tear down a building to say, hey, here's how much time we allotted ourselves to get our stack capital stacked together.

Here's how much time we allowed for an architect.

Here's how much time we've allowed to go to planning, here's how much time we allow to do this.

But that language currently in there for the time proceeding the purchase of the building.

I mean, in between the time he has the building and his plan is ready.

So we would be penalizing him for or him for or any other person for that time in between him able to being able to get ready to go and having everything in place.

So I'm glad you brought that up.

You know, if you continue reading the number two there, it's an 18-month window uh of uh of reprieve.

And that's there's many of those that we've baked into here because to your point, which is uh no arguments at all, it's a slow process.

We want to give people the ability to get their financing to find their tenants to market a property without coming after them.

And that's there's two ways to do that.

Number one, all the reprieves in here that we've baked in, depending on the circumstances of the new property owner, but also this can go to the discretion of the code enforcement official.

And should the property owner disagree with that, they can always apply to the city council for further reprieve.

Now, I do want to bring one thing to your attention.

There was a note that was given to us that we did include.

You mentioned kind of a schedule.

Uh, if you look at page two, and this is number 10, plan for maintenance.

So at the request of the council's last meeting, we did include this a formal strategy and detailed document that outlines the specific tasks required for materials, tools, procedures needed to keep the building maintained according to, and that'll be uh the ordinance put in there.

So uh, so we've definitely heard you on this.

You know, these are the one that we we address that because to your point, um, everything needs to be very clear uh because everybody's situation is very different.

One quick thing to also add to number five.

When it talks about the power source for the monitoring system, um, that and I'm not sure if he was looking at an upgrade to the entire building itself, um, but that could be something temporary as far as just having to power that alarm system.

But there also are, and I've got our community risk reduction members looking into this, but there are some variations with solar.

So even getting creative with a battery system with the solar backup, now you have eliminated the need to have the electric added to that.

So that could be a variation to this, and it gets back to the warding.

Um, but additionally, now you're talking about a cellular system fire monitoring service with just a solar backup and the battery backup itself with the technology, the way it's expanding so rapidly.

That would be a better choice than providing power to the buildings themselves.

So, question are you saying that?

And this is so that everyone can hear this, that a temporary pole or box with a meter that is to code inside the building would be suffice with just one piece of conduit running to the system to fire it would be okay.

That's meaning that you don't have to do the whole building.

Correct.

That is what that is what you're saying here.

Yes, sir.

That's understood.

Okay.

Okay, I'm I'm fine with that.

That's uh that's a great you just and that's some of the example, like just putting the wordsmithing right, just doing a temporary would be wonderful.

Temporary poll, temporary poll to code.

The electrician isn't bound by the new code, yeah, all the way.

And additionally, we do have the ability to with the code itself to make some variances with this ordinance, as far as you know NFPA might not mention the solar, but if they can provide that it provides the battery backup, that the power is sufficient, we have that ability to approve that as our code officials with the fire side for something like that to happen.

Did the wording in the ordinance I'm trying to read it real quick.

Did the wording in the ordinance, and I don't remember reading like that, it says electrical up to code.

It does not say a temporary poll or source up to code.

Can we need can we change that word?

I think it's covered, David.

Uh, and we're checking, but yeah, I think we're good.

Under uh A5 on page eight, it's uh the system should be supported by a dedicated fire source.

That's talking about the fire system, the monitoring system.

If the power source is electrical, it must uh comply with city's electrical code.

So it's talking about that one run to supply power to that fire system.

Uh well, city's electrical code isn't very clear that could be well it's talking about the power source though of that of that the that uh fire monitoring.

So we just need to put code for the power source as opposed to for the for the fire monitors right for the Paul.

Can we make that change in there so we'll know this is this is like when you when you mention this, this is something everybody should definitely hear.

So on the Hoffman buildings, that those are a time capsule.

They never had electrical, they never had indoor plumbing.

We were amazed it they were you know we're well.

I mean, original fireplaces, that's how they heated.

So when we talk to Alabama Power about, and we're you know, this is part of the design.

We have to run brand new power to that building.

That uh just doing that.

So just keep this in mind.

If if you know, and and we'll be fine on those buildings.

I'm just giving you things to think about.

You may get some pushback from some other because there are all very old properties downtown that have never been electrified, so or or plumbing.

So we uh it was about 12,000.

The developer has to pay for to get Alabama power to dig up the street to run a five-inch line, two of them into our buildings.

So just keep that in mind with the temporary, as you may have well, that cost wouldn't be incurred with the temporary pole, the temporary your temporary box would just be on site on site with them getting into it.

No, it would because there's no electricity because it has to get to the line with that particular building though, maybe exempt because it's got a six-month exemption after a fire and then 18-month uh after acquisition, and then it can also be extended by the code official by reasonable written documentation from the developer.

Yeah, it wouldn't apply to ours.

I'm just giving it on very old buildings.

Okay, thank you.

Somebody will have to pay to get that power run to the yes.

So thank you, Mr.

Carbo.

If you would just make that one sentence change about the temporary pole and power source to code, just the just the power source to code right there that clarifies that.

Um the uh I I guess Steve, you're saying that the schedule that I asked for is covered in that one line without stating that it needs to be a schedule of progress, meaning that if they go beyond if they're gonna go beyond the one, two, three years before they're ready to actually move forward with their construction, that can they give you a schedule that says here this is year one, this is where we are, year two, this is where we are year three.

We're moving forward without us finding them a thousand fifteen hundred, two thousand, four thousand dollars for I think it's a ten thousand square foot building.

I think you've got to look at it two ways.

First of all, it does cover that, but predicated on action, and so a plan is important, but action is just as important, and that's what we're trying to do here.

Because if somebody puts a plan together that says they're we'll have a tenant by X date, drawings by a certain date, ARB approval, power company, et cetera, and they don't meet those timelines, then we're gonna have a problem.

Now, if they meet those timelines, then we have a different conversation because again, we're not trying to go out of our way to find people here.

We're trying to work with developers to put to get these buildings up to code to put tenants in there.

So if we have a property owner who's acting not only in good faith, but uh but proving their actions, then yes.

Just let me give you one example, and I'm just gonna mention the building, the gay first building.

It's been through what one owner that we know who went above and beyond for several years trying to get their financing in place, their drawings in place, the capital stack in place, and all those things, but it didn't make it to the finish line.

The building is vacant.

Are you saying that we would have been in that building is well over 10,000 square feet?

So are you saying that we would have been finding that person for every year that they've owned that building trying to get their development plan in place, but then it falls apart?

Are you are is that what you're telling me?

So that is a good example of the type of building that we will be examining, uh, not only for life safety purposes, but also for economic development purposes.

Because in that particular case, we're talking about a building that uh that doesn't meet code in any regard when it comes to life safety.

Uh, that's another good example where uh the liability insurance comes into play for the safety of the citizens of downtown who not only own buildings adjacent to it, but also walk by that building every day where you have pieces literally falling into the street.

So, in that particular case, yes, we we would look at that, and there would likely be fines in place because even though that has been listed, it's been marketed, which is which uh we applaud the owners for for doing that.

There's still time limits here where even if you don't get a tenant, it's not in perpetuity.

There are still limitations on even if you market it how long there is a grace period.

But that is that is a good example where you know we really would like to see something uh put into that building, and we are of no intention of encouraging the owner to sell it unless that that's something they want to do.

We simply want it to be safe and we want to see tenants.

Uh don't you think that or would it be don't you think it would be a deterrent to development?

We would be running the developers off because we'd be fining them so much money that uh they wouldn't even want to do the project anymore.

You know, I'm I'm glad you brought up the amount of money.

So well, let's start.

Uh let's kind of start at the beginning on how we came to this process by looking at best practices of other cities.

You know, the last National League of Cities has uh has documented that over 550 other American cities have a pro a process and a program very similar to this.

And so, with uh a lot of fact-finding with a lot of investigation, looking at other cities across the country and other cities in the state of Alabama, that is how we came to this.

And I will say that the fines you see here, the fee schedule, you notice that there's different categories, uh, square footage, et cetera.

Uh, you also notice the uh the timetables we put in with all the buffers and all the time.

That is one of the most lenient versions of this that could possibly be introduced when you look at other cities.

So we really want this to work, and that's why we want to put in best practices downtown.

We want to we want to have the right staffing in place.

Uh, because again, that this is more than simply somebody being punished.

That's not the intent.

It's about uh all the reasons you've heard about life safety, and it's about making our downtown what it should be.

You know, you hear a lot of arguments.

Uh, people come and say, Well, why can't our downtown look a little more like Charleston or another city?

You know, insert city here.

It's because they have these strategies, they implement them and they enforce them.

It's not, it's not uh by magic that a lot of those cities don't have blighted buildings, blocks of blighted buildings in their downtown.

It's because they have these kind of strategies.

So we are one of the last to the table, but we also don't want to come in too heavy, and that's why we want to work with these property owners by making sure the fines are not overly burdensome.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Um I had a couple questions.

Um, one I know you you stated about other cities.

Can you give you mentioned Charleston?

So Charleston have similar prices that they're charging timelines, it's high.

Yes, sir.

Yeah.

And so um, and I'm not surprised.

Um, I mean, when you look at Charleston, um, which I I'm very I I love visiting Charleston, but the people can't even people work in Charleston can't live in Charleston.

Um, I mean, I think we we can learn from Charleston, but the same thing.

I think we can be better than Charleston, uh, making sure that um we do it properly.

Um so um have we looked at cities that's similar to Mobile?

We have because and what cities because Charleston's a little different.

I mean, it is it's similar, but I want people to enjoy the mobile who live in Mobile.

People who work in Charleston don't live downtown, they don't even they can't even enjoy, they have to live and move and go away to to be able to survive financially.

So um, what other cities that are using this system that we can look at?

So they're they're similar.

The the similarity is Birmingham and Auburn are the two in the state of Alabama because to your point, I mean I use that example because that's the example you always kind of hear on the streets.

Uh, but also to your point, this is not about pricing people out.

Yeah, you know, this is not about making it so expensive that only you know out-of-town developers can afford to come to Mobile.

It's about empowering the local citizens who own these buildings to renovate them and to encourage them to find tenants because the last thing we want to do is create a system where the local uh business community cannot afford to live and work and play in downtown.

That's correct.

So to your point, you know, that's exactly why we want to make sure these fees are a little bit lower.

Um, so there's some other smaller cities like Shreveport we've looked at, Chattanooga, uh, cities that have implemented these kind of programs in the last 10 years that we've really been able to look at for best practices and see what worked, what didn't.

Um, you know, it's not South Carolina, but even Charleston, West Virginia is another city that we looked at, which is smaller than Mobile, but theirs has been very effective.

Okay.

So we've we've tried to look kind of nationwide to find exactly what works.

So in the state of Alabama, Birmingham have something similar to this.

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Yeah.

And what is their price structure?

Is it actually quite similar?

Yeah, it is similar.

And and I tell you, New Orleans has one as well.

Now, theirs, of course, is a little bit higher, but uh um, but that's a different animal.

You know, that's why I I'm glad you brought that up.

We don't we're not comparing this to a city twice our size, or maybe with a central business district, it's five times our size.

You know, we're trying to make the this work within the parameters of what we have, you know.

And that's something if you look at the support that we've received for this in writing, you should have all received letters not only from the chamber of commerce, the downtown alliance, and the MHDC, because they agree that this strategy will work.

Gotcha.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

And Stephen, this is similar to what you're talking about.

You know, the other side of kind of what we've been talking about is um not trying to keep people from coming in and wanting to develop properties, but we are trying to prevent people from coming in, purchasing properties and sitting on them for years and years and years because they can't afford to do anything, they don't have the wherewithal, and maybe they think one day I might have some money and I'll do it eventually, and just let sit there forever and ever.

So you want to stop that.

The land plate.

Yeah, yeah.

You know, I'm gonna sit on it until prices go up, and then maybe I'll sell it.

And in the meantime, everybody suffers.

So there's got to be that middle ground somewhere so that there's some incentive to make people do something with their properties, but not make it so expensive and so um costly for for people who are planning to do it, are doing it little by little and making progress.

You know, you want to incentivize incentivize them to do that and not stop that.

But again, you know, you just we have so many folks who we've heard over the years like, no, I'm waiting for a good price, or you know, I mean it's my property, I'll do whatever I want.

And if it sits there, well, okay, but I'll eventually do something with it, you know.

And you know, we talked about public uh responsibility, personal responsibility and public safety.

So let's think about all of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been put into downtown by responsible owners of their properties.

It is not it, it is not um advantageous to say come to our downtown, or if you buy a property, your neighbor can be derelict without a fire alarm system and with no consequences of ever developing their land.

That is that's a uh discouraging way to increase economic development.

Yeah, I mean, I just think we can find that middle ground, you know, with uh not making it so costly that people just refuse to come and even take a chance on mobile, but at the same time to protect everybody to make it so that they know they actually have to do something, they can't just sit on these properties.

I think that's the important thing.

Yeah, Ben.

We have the cheapest property tax in the country.

I mean, it's an incentive in itself.

Um Ben remembered that, and I made the statement last time.

Uh Alabama's land right city and our constitution of 1901 was based on land ownership as opposed to uh revenue.

And that's why if you look at our city, uh our properties were taxed by the frontage that it fronted on the street for years.

That's why if you go down government streets, some of these streets that have real prominent owners, you see wide houses.

But when you look at other properties, the lots were narrow and deep because they were taxed by the frontage for property.

And also the land was protected because of the formats and the things that they did.

So we were a property rights state.

We have some of the lowest property taxes in the United States, but our state income tax is some of the highest too to offset that.

So that's why these are our property rights laws are so important.

And but to get to the point is is that like I told y'all last week, we're gonna have to do something.

And I think that the council can address the fee schedule to maybe lighten the fee schedule or or get it to a way that it may be somewhat comfortable.

But to do something to encourage whatever we're gonna do downtown and encourage economic development, we're gonna have to do it, but also to protect uh the life safety issue, we're gonna also have to do something about that before we get to the end of it.

I got a question about this 99 unit building that was brought up.

Uh, that's occupancy.

Oh no, uh occupancy is 99, whatever it is, and it's apparently snagged in some planning issue.

Um if something's snagging in a planning issue, then that means that owner developers got to pivot to something else.

Something's got to provoke them to pivot to something else.

I I'm good with this, you know, uh as it's written.

Uh I think I think there's there's adequate outs here, especially with somebody that puts together a plan and says, This is what our plan is, this is what we're gonna do.

And there's you know, this this reasonable discretion that would have to be given, you know, there's enough there to say, okay, this is uh a real developer who's got a real plan and they're taking real action towards you know an end.

I I think there's enough discretion in there to allow that to take place without being punitive.

Uh, the it was interesting about the rebate idea.

I mean, you can't give it all back towards that the that particular development, I would say, because then you just put your money in there and you know you got it all coming back to you.

But if there's a sort of buy down on that rebate over time where once you reach $10,000 worth of fine, you can you know recoup a thousand of it, two thousand of it uh at the end of the day.

Maybe that's an idea or a thought.

You know, you've got to spend a lot of money on the people back because you know, proceeded quickly and got the budget.

So I will address that issue and then a couple of others, but uh, Mr.

Reynolds actually um helped create the uh the earmark for how this would be able to go back into the owner's pocket with the TIFT.

This this money, based on the amendment that he suggested doing our sit-down meeting, will be segregated into a specific account for the rehab and administering both the staff side and making sure that the side grants are picked up, and all of these owners within the loop would be eligible for that.

And so um that's that's actually a really good amendment, and and we thank you for it.

Uh we've accepted, I think 90 percent of the amendments that um that you all have talked about, and so um I don't I don't think that any of it being rejected, but they were just kind of withdrawn.

I do want to say this.

If I was advising somebody on how to kill this ordinance or make it a toothless tiger, I would attack the fee schedule because that is where we really promote the enforcement.

Um you have to think about, and I think uh Mr.

McNair's way too modest to say so, but he's probably been involved in more redevelopment within the confines of the city of Mobile, historic and otherwise, than any two people combined in this building.

Um, he helped rehab uh City Hall North and a number of other areas, and so he and Flo Kessler worked on this particular ordinance for quite some time.

It it ranges back to two years ago, right before the Hoffman building caught on fire, and that's really when it literally lit a fire up under us.

Pun intended.

We're looking to not penalize developers, but to create a real incentive to move forward and not have the people who some by no fault of their own have recently acquired property, and that's not a problem.

But some for years for the last 20 years, as Ms.

Gregory mentioned, have held on to buildings and thumb their noses at the city and their neighbors for quite some time.

We don't have to say their names, we know who we're talking about.

But that's really the push, and I think that's why so many people are so supportive of it, and this is possibly the least strenuous way to do so.

Um, another thing I'll compliment you as a city, we have a number of best practices, but we're behind on this.

Um, you've got one of the best fire departments in the country with ASO, ISO one and certified, and you also have one of the best blight remediation programs in the country.

I think President Small and some others have gone to legal cities and talked about how innovative it is.

So there's a lot of good tools that we have in the box, but we need this tool to be able to create a forcing function in downtown.

Otherwise, if we change this too much, if we water it down too much, we'll get what we've always had, and we'll keep those buildings for another 20 years.

Um, obviously there's fire code, there's build code.

Um, and then uh I guess just for clarification standpoint, um, and I don't know if it's a David question or not, or or with code knowledge, um getting power to the building and then getting power from the meter to the to the uh to the monitoring station.

Uh I mean, you know, we're not gonna have to all these buildings, they're not whoever the owner is, isn't gonna have to come in and entirely rip out all the old electrical and bring it up to code.

I mean, there's there's ways that we can waive wave just for I guess that one circuit or that one run, I guess.

Is that is that kind of what that conversation was earlier?

Is that we can we could not have to worry about bringing the whole entire building up to code.

We can we can strike.

No, based on what was discussed here, it's it's temporary polls, it's power systems through solar, as long as it's approved with the fire department.

Oh, I I think we'll be satisfied.

Now, you're right though, that some some cases with temporary poll, you will need electrical permit, and it will need to go through build mobile for that permit, and then the fire department for the final system.

Uh David, with all temporary polls, there's a permit required.

That's that's why I didn't have a headache with it, with all permit that is correct.

That's all to my opinion as well.

But I just wanted to bring that up to Mr.

Woods that that yes, there's multiple departments that would be involved, but specifically electrical for that temporary poll.

There's also fuels, you know, there's several layers of appeals where they can appeal to the building director, whoever it is, and then they can then, if that doesn't go your way, you can appeal to the city council, and then if that doesn't go your way, you can appeal to the circuit court.

So there's the appeal process.

If you don't like the decision, there's several appeals you can go through.

Uh I didn't quite follow that, but I guess if it fails with the council, they can appeal to circuit court, just like the regular rule states in the in this abatement.

Yeah, so there's a building official, and then there's a building director, and then there's the city council, and then there's the circuit court.

CJ.

You can go.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see you.

Yeah, I'm very supportive of this.

Umtown is the heart of the city.

I mean, it's where it's beat at, but we just cannot forget the arteries, and that's the neighborhoods.

Um I can't stress this enough.

You know, we just need more enforcement, you know, in our neighborhoods because again, it's no, you know, we've been in two and hundred thousand out of houses in the neighborhood, and right next door is you know blight, you know.

So I mean again, I'm very supportive of this, but we just cannot forget our neighborhoods.

One step at a time.

I I think we started out there and they asked us to make this area test area.

So just an observation, you know, there's a lot of a conversation today had to do about a developer, and all of a sudden he's hit with additional ten thousand dollars in cost.

If you fast forward, let's say you pass this, and so 18 months from now, developer comes in and he wants to buy a building because you've already passed it, he knows that is a carrying cost going forward.

The property owner knows he's got a carrying cost going forward, also.

And so instead of holding out for the last dollar, he's saying, I can't afford this ten thousand dollars.

Uh, I don't want to, you know, hold it for another year.

So there's a chance he's going to cut that cost.

You know, my point is is that you're going to change the market dynamics of this.

And so uh that will hopefully help move the properties.

But going back to what Mr.

Woods said, if we do the pricing too low, then um then people will just continue to sit there.

Another story I will tell you.

Several years ago, and we were trying to get cruise ships back and all had an opportunity to take president of the cruise line downtown.

And let me say this, I was fired up about downtown.

We had opened three or four new restaurants, and things were vibrant.

This was pre-COVID.

And they wanted to go down Dolphin Street, the entertainment district.

And of course, really in my mind's eye, I was thinking of all this activity that you see downtown.

Well, you know, when we started riding down, and they're sitting in the passenger seat, and we started passing blighted building after blighted building after blighted building.

I mean, my insides hurt saying this is embarrassing.

And so, you know, we I think your band here agrees.

We've got to do something, otherwise, uh, you will never have a great downtown.

Just an observation.

Well, yeah.

I do want to tell you that I agree with what councilman Small said though, too.

I know we're we're looking at downtown now, and I appreciate that, and I'm supportive of that.

Next, though, we need to start looking toward the residential areas and what we can do to get people who leave their properties and the situation that they're in.

Now they may board them up because we make them board them up, but they still look awful and brings down the entire rest of the neighborhood.

The yards are grown up and weeds growing all over the houses.

The windows are boarded for the most part, but the rest of it looks awful.

And it doesn't encourage anybody to come in and purchase any of these properties and the heirs, most of whom are out of town generally.

We can't get them to do anything.

So there's got to be a way that we can move forward and improve our neighborhoods as well, because there are just too many of them that just sit there and bring the entire area down.

If we can do this in downtown, we gotta find a way to do them in the residence as well.

Residential areas.

So on the current budget for the new fiscal year, y'all approved to add two more enforcement officers to do exactly what you're talking about.

We've also taken the municipal enforcement officers that do public right-of-ways, move them over into code enforcement.

Um, and they are in within the next couple of weeks, you're gonna see amendments to ordinances to allow us to do debris as well as wheedling on these houses.

Um, and you'll also see one for the tires ours so that we can address the tire issue as well.

And so I think you're gonna see quite a bit of movement uh in those areas that you're most concerned about.

But we also need them to take some sort of action on the houses themselves, either demolish them or renovate them, do something with them rather than letting them sit there.

And that's correct.

That's the two additional um enforcement officers that we're bringing in to deal strictly with residential structure, Mr.

Chairman.

Yes, um, and I agree with councilman Smalls and Councilmember Gregory.

Um, this is just a suggestion because I know we got to do this, but um forward, we had a situation in my district where it was a blighted property.

The city is still cutting gotta go through the whole process, cutting the grass, we're doing all this, and it was a lien on the property.

If we can a lot of times the owners are not selling the property because it's a lien on the property, they're not gonna, and the lien is more than what the property owned worth.

So we I think if we can get a program in place to start promoting, maybe removing if the owner is ready to sell the property to remove the lien so they can sell it to the and put a program in place for that.

I think and then start creating some development.

I think that could be a major um piece to create some change in our our communities.

We we have a program was not widely used, not widely publicized because the owner a lot of times doesn't want to sell.

What we don't want to do is enrich the problem owner, but if they're trying to sell the property, the person acquiring the property can apply to us to see if we can forgive part of that lien to get it down to where break even it's break-even.

When you do that though, the seller doesn't make a profit and they hold the property a lot of times.

But if it's in a redevelopment area, we could do that administratively.

If it's not, those come back before council.

We've done about a handful in the last five or six years.

I think we need to focus on it, and I think it needs to be a program and pushing developers because they the owners, they're not gonna sell it when they know they're not gonna make any money.

That's just a suggestion, not a direct.

Thank you.

Uh, that one ask on the temporary poll.

If we did make the add that amendment also, Paul, have you made that note already?

Okay, uh Ben, I've read most of your amendments from last week and also the three that I asked for.

I see that some of that language is there.

Uh, I wasn't really clear on the language about um Mr.

McNair's ad about that one sentence there.

I think it needed to be a whole lot clearer for those of us that don't read like that or have that in it that as far as scheduling goes and how that works.

I think it needs to be clear if uh an owner or developer or whoever uh wants to develop as submits his schedule of timeline and repair to the city, uh, that it would suffice.

Uh the same way we do for news to the abatement.

How we come in, we submit the schedule, the time frame, the dates, and all that stuff.

I think uh that would be a whole lot clearer than what's there right now.

But other than that, I think we've gotten everything.

Uh are we all in agreement of the all the amendments that we've seen.

Did you have something else to you want to say something?

You came to the mic.

Um I'll talk to the record Mr.

Penn after the meeting.

It was about the uh auction process relief properties.

Okay.

All right, we're all good.

Uh anyone uh else from the city.

All right, Mr.

Townsend, you clear everything clear now.

Hope to see that that mattress factory build and redevelop very soon as quick as you can, man.

Take your time with it.

Appreciate y'all.

Uh, we're dismissed.

So I want to make sure I've got this clear.