How do we give us a h do we give us a hug Good morning everyone and welcome to the appeals hearing board for September 18th, 2025.

Um I think we'll just start uh call the meeting to order at 1001.

And uh first um item on the consent consent agenda is to approve the minutes of March 22nd, 2024.

Um, anybody like to I move that they get approved, okay.

Can you speak up just a little?

I'm not sure.

I move that they get approved.

Okay.

Okay.

All right.

So uh roll call vote.

Just be okay.

Yes.

Okay, okay.

The motion passes four to zero.

Um general public comments at this time.

Seeing no one online.

Is there anyone in the chambers?

Doesn't look like there's anyone in the chambers.

I think it's okay to close public comments.

Okay, and our next um item on the agenda is to adopt a regular um meeting schedule for the 25-2026 years.

Move that uh the existing uh calendar that's in that document be approved.

Okay, second.

I can second as well.

Okay, and we did there's online that might push to speak and there's no one in the chambers.

No.

Okay.

I'm not sure about that.

Yeah, uh, I understand that the mics are on.

It doesn't sound very loud, but yeah.

Okay, so um all those in favor?

Yes.

Okay, the motion passes four to zero, okay.

And the next item on the agenda is to select the chair and vice chair for term ending June 30th, 2026.

I'm just the pinch hitter today, so whoever you guys are looking for.

Happy to support it.

Does anybody want to be the chair?

There's a one no.

All right.

Christine, can an alternate serve as a vice chair or chair?

Uh, unfortunately not.

Sorry.

All right.

I'm happy to do so.

Okay.

Do we need a nomination for vice chair as well?

We do.

Okay.

You guys want to flip a coin?

Okay.

Perfect.

Okay.

So I'll make a motion that uh Mr.

Glenzer is the chair and that is good.

Okay.

Um I'll second.

Or no, I can't second.

I'm one of them.

You can.

You can, yeah.

Okay.

All those in favor?

Yes.

Uh aye.

Okay.

The motion passes four to zero.

Okay.

The next item on the agenda is the adopt administrative order for failure to comply with compliance order issued June 6, 2025 for violation of the Monterey County.

Excuse me, Monterey City Code Section 9-0.1.10.

Adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code and Section and Section 13-0.1.

Adoption of the California Fire Code, California Code of Regulations 4.

And California Code of Regulations 4.

I'm I am going to recuse myself from this matter as a long-time customer of the business.

So that's why we have Mr.

Chang here.

So it's not a.

Pardon me.

It's not a legal disqualification.

So Ms.

Fritz is allowed to um observe this proceeding.

You don't need to leave the chambers.

But you should probably step down from the dais.

And I do have just a quick disclaimer before we get started here.

I'm the city attorney.

I'm representing the appeals hearing board in this matter.

Karen Crotley is the assistant city attorney and she is representing staff.

We have maintained a due process separation wall, meaning that I have not discussed this case with Ms.

with Ms.

Crotley, and we have not shared each other's files.

I've received the same information as the board at the same time.

The board received the information.

And we do this to make sure that there is a fair hearing and division internally in our office to ensure that due process is provided.

And so the way these proceedings ordinarily work is we will hear from the city's case, and then we will hear from the appellant, and the board can ask questions and then deliberate and render a decision.

And of course, it'll be opened up to public comment as well.

So I'm chair, if it's okay, we can go ahead and let the city um just one, excuse me, just one question.

Um my memory from 18 months ago, we we used to normally say something about forms of evidence and whether this is legal that can be sure.

So the yes, the um rules of evidence um are not strictly applied here, so hearsay is admissible as long as it's um reasonable to be considered.

Um, so in other words, the hearing is much more flexible than as if we were in a court of law.

Um, so much more relaxed standards here.

And the city does carry the burden of proof um by preponderance of the evidence, meaning like a little bit more than 50%.

I'm not very good with numbers.

Uh well, if it pleases the the chair and the board, um, I'll begin.

I'm assistant city attorney Karen Cradley.

I'm as um city attorney Davy mentioned, I'm representing the departments today, which are the fire department and the code compliance division.

So if it's acceptable with the board, I would ask um Rory Lakind, um, our code compliance officer and um Justin Cooper, division chief from the fire department, to maybe sit at the tables so they could have the microphones and um kind of help as we go along.

That sounds like a great idea.

Okay, great.

Um, I'll start with a little background and then they will um provide informal testimony to the board as well about their inspections and violations at the property.

So we're here today to talk about 1299 Del Monte.

So just a little background because we haven't done this in a bit.

So the city code provides for a compliance order to be issued whenever staff um determines that a violation of the city code is occurring um on a property within the city, and so at that point, the staff can issue a compliance order detailing the violations that exist on the property, and then giving the property owner a reasonable amount of time to come into compliance.

If compliance is not achieved full compliance, then um within the time in the compliance order, then a hearing is set before the appeals hearing board.

And as we are doing today, staff requests you to issue an administrative order that then includes penalties, costs, as well as uh doubling for compliance for the property to um become in compliance with the code.

So that's the background there.

I I also wanted to mention the standard.

So you're as we discussed briefly, you're gonna consider written and oral evidence regarding the violation.

Um and this takes the form of the agenda report which you received.

Then you can also hear the testimony um from the property owner, anyone else that may be held liable.

Um, so that's the general standard.

Um, and then if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation has occurred and was not corrected within the time period, you know, the court says the board shall issue the code says the board shall issue an administrative order.

So this is the property we're talking about here.

That's an aerial view of it, slightly highlighted.

And this was also attachment 18 in the packet.

And so the city code specifies that property ownership is determined based on the county assessors records.

And so the county assessor shows that this property is owned by Del Monte Investment LLC.

So I also included that attachment 21 is the Secretary of State filing for Peninsula Tire Services Inc., which is the business operating at that location.

And that filing shows that it's owned by Anthony Virgil and the same agent for service address for Del Monte Investment, which it's a little hard to see on this slide, but in the packet, attachment 18 is shown as the owner for 1299 Del Monte.

Um that has the same um address as Anthony Virgil and Peninsula Tire Services agent in attachment 21.

So staff submits that the 1299 Del Monte property is owned by Del Monte Investment LLC, which is managed um by Anthony Virgil, and that the business operating on that site, Peninsula Tire Services Inc.

is also owned by Anthony Virgil.

Hmm.

Okay, there we go.

So, yeah, okay.

The compliance order can be issued based on violations of city code, and the city um adopts the California Building Code, the California or the International Property Maintenance Code, as well as the California Fire Code.

So this slide is just illustrating that by extension, the city has adopted these codes, and so then we can cite and issue compliance orders for violation of both in this case, it was the international property maintenance code and the fire code.

So then we come to the violations on the property.

So these slides show they were both taken in October of 2024 and show what is referred to as the tire pile on the property.

And so at this point, um code compliance officer Rory Lickend is gonna um tell us a little bit about the inspection process at the property and what he found when he inspected there.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Rory Lake and I'm the code compliance coordinator for the city of Monterey.

Uh, been employed for approximately four years in this position.

Um I received a complaint um the beginning of October 2024 about the tires um piled up at 1299 Del Monte.

I went out to the location uh with members of the fire department, uh met with the uh owner of the property and of the um the company, Mr.

Virgil, um, and we discussed the uh some of the issues out at the property.

Um they included the tire pile.

Uh there were some people at the at that point living on the property as well.

And overall, the the um condition of the property uh was not up to the city code or to uh standards that we we expect our businesses to uh uphold.

Um subsequently I sent out a notice of violation uh to uh the property, um giving uh I believe a 30-day window to clean up uh the property.

Um here we are uh almost a year later, and and though we've had a couple times where um large amounts of tires were removed um due to the fact that it's a a business that sells, you know, tires often four at a time, um, the pile has actually grown um in height.

Um so we're still probably somewhere between a thousand to fifteen hundred tires uh stacked up uh outside the building.

Uh the pictures you see are um between two buildings, uh, which is extremely dangerous for fire concerns.

Uh there are tires stacked up inside the building uh as well.

Um the original um use of the property before Mr.

Virgil purchased it, had uh qualifications that there should not be tires between the buildings um outside.

Um over the last uh 11 plus months.

Uh I visited the property often with the fire department approximately 17 times.

Um, and uh, though the pile has diminished uh on a couple of occasions, it's it's grown back up to um the other uh photos you'll see in the slides.

Um during that period of time, I issued some citations, um, had multiple discussions um with the property owner about the situation.

Um and it unfortunately due to I believe due to financial issues, they have not he's not been able to remove all of the all of the tires.

Okay, thank you.

And I'll just go to the next slide.

These are photos taken then in June of this year, June 2025.

Um, and maybe Division Chief Cooper.

If you could talk to us um and explain to us sort of your concerns and why the fire code prohibits large tire piles like this.

Yes.

Uh good morning, my name's Justin Cooper.

I'm the fire market division chief here with Monterey Fire Department.

Thank you for allowing me to speak on this matter.

Um first off, um, as you can see, the height of the tire pile based upon the rules and regulations in the California fire code has been adopted.

Um requirements being met in the fire code.

And one of the particular ones is you cannot have fire piles within 50 feet of a structure or of a lock line.

Um there's some exceptions in there that could trick it down to 10 feet, but as you can see, this is all the way up against the buildings between the buildings and also against the property line across the set back.

Um if you were to have a fire that ignites in these types of tires and burn very hot, um, it becomes a very much hazardous situation for firefighters.

If you've ever seen a tire pile on fire before, um my knowledge and expertise with fighting these type of fires that have gone to some of these before is we would have a minute threat of losing both of those buildings and also potentially the building in the back based upon how close it is to the lock line.

Um you're looking at not just a single one-hour type fire fight, put this type of fire out.

This type of fire fight, once these tires get involved in fire that last um even over 24 hours uh fire button.

Um obviously that would also have significant impact for the city.

We need transportation.

Uh obviously, Del Mani is a major artery, also with typically affect uh post graduate school.

Um, though it's very uh based there also for us.

Uh the other big concern is the environmental hazard runoff that we would see with this type of fire.

Um obviously we have very strict requirements for our sanctuary and for water runoff or store breakfast.

So that kind of uh demonstrates the issues that we would face.

Um we do have a fire involved in type of uh tire pile.

That is a question, sir.

Yes.

Um and just for the record, did you inspect the property um personally?

Yep, several times.

Um I did meet um both clients and uh other uh members of my department prevention staff, um, some of whom are here today also down there to inspect the facility.

Um we did go on site and uh talk about um the remediation that needs to occur for um the tire piles to get actually removed out of that very completely because as you can see it's two both of the buildings, um the height is well over um allowable height.

Um additionally, there's an extra sprinkler.

It's hard to see in the path six, uh but you can see it right below the roof line there where it comes out of the size.

Um, that's that's also uh close to having products to a spring burden.

Um, but several um fire code violations were observed on the properties, some of those were remediated, such as um the fire stain members were all out of date.

Um the uh owner did remediate that, was able to get um some of the fires and place in service, and put in place, was a good thing.

Um, however, we still deal with the tire issues as well when they are the so based on your inspections, you would agree that the tire piles, both in their locations, dimensions, height, and volume all violated the California fire code.

Okay.

So moving along.

Sorry.

There we go.

So, officer Lacint Lake and sorry, on the left, attachment 14, and it's hard to see, but it is full in the packet.

Um, is that the detail where you mentioned the 17 inspections you performed on the property?

Yes, okay, and then we see um attachments nine, 10 and 11.

Those are all administrative citations you issued to the property, correct?

That is correct.

Um, and was compliance achieved after any of these inspections or um administrative citations?

No, they the property remains out of compliance.

Okay.

Um, sorry.

So then the compliance order was issued by you, um, correct?

Yes, and so that was issued on June 9th, 2025.

Um, it included violations of the city codes that then adopt the international property maintenance code and the fire code, correct?

Yes.

And if you look at attachment 20 in the um packet, so that is a letter that you sent on July 16th, 2025, and you gave um an extension to uh the property because there had been um it says there was 500 tires removed, is that correct?

That is correct.

There were two instances where um uh approximately 500 tires were removed.

So in an effort to work with the property owner, you gave him additional time to remove um the remaining tires to August 15th, correct?

That is correct.

So then um did you re-inspect the property on August 18th, 2025?

That is correct.

And attachment 19, which is on the slide here in front of us, is that a photo from your inspection on August 18th?

Yes.

Okay, and so at that time, did you observe in addition to there being um used tires stored in the pile?

Was there also general trash and rubbish stored there as well?

Yes, there was a bunch of garbage thrown up onto the pile.

Okay.

Not sure why.

And at that point in time, again, um, was the pile over 10 feet high?

Yes, and it was touching the buildings as shown in this photo.

Yes, that's an accurate depiction of the situation out there.

And would you um estimate based on your inspection that it was over a thousand tires at that time?

Yes.

Okay, so based on the city code, staff also requests um, in addition to finding that the violations were not remediated, that they continue to exist.

Um, and let me back up one more time.

Um Officer.

Did you drive by the property today?

I did not get there this morning.

Okay, but this week, I believe.

And was the tire pile still there?

Very similar.

Okay, thank you.

Um so in addition to finding that the violations continue to exist, staff also asked that the appeals hearing board um assess administrative costs.

So these are the costs of the inspections, both by code compliance as well as the fire department.

And those itemized costs were um included as attachment 14 in the packet.

And up here I put the city code section that authorizes the board to impose the costs.

We also request administrative penalties.

So this is a penalty of $10 a day for noncompliance since August 15th until today.

And then we would request additional penalties of $50 per day, if the deadlines in the board's administrative order are not met, and the city code authorizes those penalties to accrue up to 100,000.

So I would also say as Division Chief Cooper mentioned, it the fire extinguisher violation has been complied with.

So in conclusion, the tire pile continues to exist.

And so staff requests that the administrative order as revised today, and I'll give one additional copies of our be adopted.

And with that, we can have any questions from the board, and then Mr.

Virgil will also be given an opportunity to cross-examine staff if he wishes.

What exactly is the difference between a citation and a compliance order?

So the city code allows for different enforcement options for staff.

So an administrative citation is I would describe it as akin to a parking ticket, where you pay a set fine, and essentially that's done.

So in those cases, I think it's a couple hundred dollars here.

The compliance order is not just looking at retroactive.

It says you have to do take remediation to clean up the property.

And if you don't, you can potentially face fines and penalties.

And there's also the possibility that the city may abate the nuisance, and um obviously there'd have to be another hearing, but lean the property then for those costs.

So generally a compliance order administrative order is more serious than an administrative citation.

Okay.

And I I want to check my understanding.

So there was a compliance order issued on June 9th, and then there was another one issued on August 15th.

Is that correct?

So a compliance order was issued June 9th.

Um a new one wasn't issued, but we extended the deadline in the June 9th, because originally I think it was a 30-day, you know, sometime in July that the compliance had to be achieved.

Staff had seen some steps towards compliance, wanted to try to work with the property owner.

And so they said we'll extend the deadline for compliance.

Um, so it's still one compliance order that I got it.

Got it.

Very, very broad question about this whole procedure?

Anything from the city's perspective that was somehow different from a normal, whatever a normal procedure is.

But we've dealt with other forms of nuisances, rubbish, garbage, trash accumulating on properties that then is not cleared out and similar process has been followed for those properties.

That's all I have.

Erin, for the record, could you uh walk us through exactly how much money you're asking for and break it down?

Sure.

So let me go back real quick to go.

So the administrative costs, which is the cost of the various inspections, mostly staff time.

Yeah, I just meant there's a ten dollar or fifty dollar than the admin cost of seventy-three.

Okay, the penalties, okay.

Yeah.

So the admin costs um that we're requesting are seven thousand three hundred and thirty-nine dollars and ninety-two cents.

Then the penalties uh is ten dollars a day for 34 days, which is the time from the final compliance date of August 15th until today.

Um, and so that's $340.

And then today, if the board imposes as uh administrative order, you would adopt a deadline in the future for compliance.

Staff proposed three weeks to remove the tires.

If that isn't complied with, then we would request further penalties of $50 per day.

The citations on attachments nine, 10, and 11.

Have those been paid?

No, at least not the last time staff checked.

Okay.

I was reading through the citations and the specific order.

At what point, and this isn't as a matter of law, but more of a matter of equity.

At what point was um the gentleman given notice that administrative costs might be at play as far as citations?

Yeah.

Uh immediately.

Uh I I sent I I had I've hand delivered multiple um you know documents to Mr.

Virgil.

I've spoken with him on uh at least 17 plus times.

Um he was notified multiple times that you know citations uh were going to be issued if things weren't done.

Um we're at almost a year.

One of the compliance orders specifically identifies that administrative costs could be at play.

It's in the it's in the documents.

Yeah.

I do uh which date?

Uh October 8th, um, October 10th, 2024.

Can you point me to that attachment, please?

So it's attachment eight.

So that's essentially it says at the top warning letter.

So no penalties were imposed at that time, but it does say, you know, failure to correct may subject you to administrative citations, fines, liens, and other legal remedies.

Um, and it also details that um a compliance order may be issued.

So that's on packet page 29.

Yeah.

And just a double check.

When are we starting the clock on administrative costs?

Is it after October 8th or so?

That is uh attachment 14.

Let me look here.

So attachment 14 shows administrative costs and it goes back to October 8th.

So the course the board has discretion to decide at what date and adjust costs or penalties as you so see fit.

Yeah.

What happens in terms of the unpaid citations?

Does that move forward as a lien or does that get wrapped into this?

Those are a separate proceeding.

Generally, the finance department can decide if they want to attempt collections through a collections agency or small claims court.

Um, but that is housed within the finance department.

I don't want to monopolize the time, so thank you.

Yeah, I just have a few questions.

Um how do you how do you know how many tires are there?

Um just by looking at the volume.

Um, I believe the division chief cooper did some research on.

Yeah, looking at the volume and size of the file, and looking at a distance, the ordinance of the fire pile, um, and then looking also at how many tires were removed by the company when he did have uh about it was 500 tires removed of what that did as far as reducing the pile, although it was easy to uh take a look at it that there's all over a thousand tires located in that fire file.

Has there been any other complaints besides the one initial complaint you received?

Uh, yes, perhaps.

Um I have received at least two different complaints to Mare Fire Station 13 of citizens that have actually come to that station um at various times to complain about the fire file there at that intersection.

Um, and that was reported to um one of the fire captives there, fire captain Danny Gibbon, uh, who then actually took initial action because we did not know that we already had a light on this before, or we're already in this process.

Like he actually drove over there to the piles, and he also did send me an email um raising the concerns about the uh fire threat and hazardous conditions that were occurring on the property.

Okay.

The last question, what I'm a little not clear on, and this would just be my naive, and I've been on this committee, but it says you went there 17 times.

It just seems that seems kind of excessive.

Like I might understand what you thought was going to be different.

And then just to follow up on that, so then does he get billed and administrative costs for someone going to his place of business for 17?

Is that part of the administrative costs going to the business 17 times?

So staff is requesting that to be imposed.

Um that's what's itemized in attachment 14.

I would say Monterey generally has a history of trying to work with property owners to achieve voluntary compliance.

Um I think that was what was done in this situation.

Now, of course, the board has discretion if they want to reduce that amount and find that maybe you feel some of those were necessary or unnecessary, but I believe they were trying to work with the property owner towards compliance.

We can't craft remedies.

Okay.

Thank you.

Welcome.

So now I have a follow-up based on that.

Um had the original compliance order June 9th been met, would there still have been administrative costs then?

Yes.

If you look at attachment 14, well, okay, if actually no, if the compliance order was complied with, then um, we don't have the hearing and no administrative costs are imposed at all.

Sorry.

So just to clarify that administrative costs can only be issued if it comes here.

Correct.

I'm sorry, but I didn't hear what you administrative costs can only be um charged if it comes to this board.

They can't just do it on their own.

Right.

It has to be part of the administrative order, which is issued by the board.

So with that, if Mr.

Virgil would you have the opportunity to cross-examine the city's witnesses, or you may do your own presentation.

Uh, however, you would like to proceed.

Hello.

Here are you.

Anthony Virgil, Peninsula Tire Service.

Yes.

Um the um officers and fire department has been up there all those times and they've been really um trying to get me in compliance.

Uh I'll say that right off the bat.

The problem is is that uh I had some in I had some uh banking issues in sense of uh funds that I didn't have so that's how they and I mentioned it to the you know I'm straight shooter I told you how how it is I just didn't have the money uh to uh to get those out of there.

I was aware that there was way too many.

I I uh had uh some tire disposal folks come by and and we got it down and we got all them out of the uh most of them out of the uh uh because there was more than that.

I mean I hate to say that it was.

What I'm just saying is that uh I'm I'm work I'm working on it.

I will get those out of here.

Um just in three weeks I will have I I sold the property, you know, because uh I was gonna be foreclosed at the headset.

So when I get those funds, I'm going to uh you know clean everything out and um there will not be a peninsula tire.

Yes, I'm I'm out of business.

You're right.

I had a lot of tires out there and uh in the uh I don't really have too much more to say than that.

I will I will clean up the uh mess and uh I have taken steps to do that.

Uh but then again, like you said, you you get you know, I've been there a long time and I got a pretty good clientele, and uh of course you can dispose of some, then some come back, and then you're then you run into uh an issue.

It looks better, but it's not in compliance.

And uh I I agree with that 100%.

Like I said, I uh I had these real bad loans and I had to uh uh sell the property.

They were closed.

I just couldn't uh afford it, and that was just and that's you know, that's truth, and that's I uh I'll get them out of there and uh I will uh make sure it's all cleaned out before I forget anything session of the problem.

Mr.

Verge are you okay answering a couple questions or yes okay?

Did you say that you're selling the property?

It's been sold.

The property has been sold.

Okay.

So you through your LLC are no longer the owner of the property?

No.

Has that title transfer already happened or it happened?

Okay, okay, I'll find out.

I don't have any other questions.

I'm sorry here about your loss of your the business selling the property or lost your business.

Are you are you moving the business?

You're moving your business someplace or no, but so how how much long do you think you'll be um um three three weeks at that?

Is your business currently renting the property from the current owner?

Uh actually he just gave me time to okay to been very generous on that is to uh give them me a little time to take care of the tires and discipline property.

How long were you there?

31 years, sir.

How long thirty-one thirty-one years, yeah.

Oh well.

I don't have any other questions, you guys.

Do you have any questions?

I don't have any questions.

Okay, thank you.

So at this point, um, let's have a conversation about what we're thinking about the yeah.

If we could just check to make sure there's no one in the public that wishes to speak on this too.

What a great idea.

Yeah, thank you.

At this time there's no one online, and it doesn't look like there's anyone in the chambers either.

Christine, does the city get a response as well, or are they okay?

If they would like to, sure, yeah.

I'll just um so the city obtains property ownership information from the county assessors database, and I will say that does not update um quickly, so I don't have confirmation on the sale, and I have not seen any documentation on that, so I don't have any further information to provide the board on ownership, is a citation um attaching to the building or the property or the business itself, that's gonna be important.

So the administrative order, you can determine who the responsible party is, and a responsible party can be a business owner, a property owner, or both.

In this case, based on the evidence this staff had we put before the board that the responsible party is the property owner, the business owner, and Mr.

Virgil as the manager of both of those staff does not actually lean a property.

We don't have authority to do that, um, and neither does the board until we were to go to the city council and ask them to do so.

So that's another um step.

So that would not necessarily happen regardless of what happens here today.

Does anyone have a relationship with Marina over at the assessor's office?

No, I was saying if we could maybe find out, wouldn't be too hard.

We have an APN, they can check pretty quick whether like a change of ownership has come through.

Or if the sale was just like a private quick claim deed.

I'm just trying to figure out whether sales really happen.

Okay, all right.

Let's open this up for some deli deliberation thoughts.

Um my analysis doesn't necessarily center around matters of law.

The violations seem pretty clear.

The procedure seems to have been followed.

Um due process seems to be followed as well.

Lots of notification, um, so sufficient notice, like all those principles seem to be met.

Uh, I think the majority of my discussion will be centered around crafting a proper remedy, something that feels right seems right.

Um how do we balance um compliance justice and not being punitive?

That's sort of what I'm trying to figure out here.

Or if the board wants to be punitive, that's for everyone to that's for that's why the that's why we're here as citizens, is to get a proper sense of that.

I would echo those comments.

I agree with that.

Uh I think everything that's on the eyes that have dotted the T's have been crossed and it's just about what is the old what what are we going to come down to as actual remedy?

I'm a little like the miniature cost, a little.

I'm not sure about going that far with that number.

It seems a little high to me.

Especially, you know, you keep going this way.

I understand the desire to work with the owner.

Uh but it's the situation does change.

I mean, I'm not sure you can keep going someplace and then building someone for that, saying, Hey, we're coming by here, going by here.

And I understand that the idea of wanting to work with someone.

So I I think for me, I have flexibility in that number and changing changing that.

Um, but again, ultimately, whatever you come with, what is the what is the end goal?

Is the end goal to try to make the whole?

Is it to ensure that this uh doesn't happen again, or is it to check the general public?

So we're in a at least for me, I'm trying to charge work because it's kind of a different situation where someone has actually uh basically the business down, my understanding is that uh this is uh shown with the uh with the record uh that he has uh with this uh so I don't know.

I'm I'm more looking at what the in-game, what the revenue would be with the and I'm sorry, go ahead, Justin.

No, go ahead.

Christine, do you know how common these administrative orders are that uh at cost.

Um I will say lately as we all coming down the board hasn't met super frequently, these are the orders are by the time we have been rather regular, probably uh correlation between our short staff and on the 304 side.

Um but yes, it's it's difficult.

There's always the concern when it comes to issues like this about incentives.

We don't necessarily want to incent the piling on of costs if we know that they're that's always something to keep in mind.

Well, what would the the administrative cost seem like just from my gut feeling?

The administrative cost seem high, the fine seems low.

So a rebalancing of those might be the way.

So what uh what thoughts do we either one of you have about uh a rational way of um perhaps modifying those administrative costs?

So that's what I hear both of you saying.

That's actually just where my discussion about we would want to be centered, and I want to get a feel from the rest of the board.

I'm actually not adverse to the number itself, but I'm aware that it might be high.

So I just that's why I raised the issue.

I want to bring it up for discussion and get a sense from the community as to how you guys feel about it.

Yes, do you have any um I mean to me it's uh I mean I it seems a bit high, but I'm I'm trying to think what would I do to what would be a logical way to reduce as opposed to oh that's too much, I want to reduce it by 10%, 20%.

But what's the reasoning?

What's the support of why you would do that?

I guess that that's the challenge I'm coming up with.

Um is there is there a a lot uh a delineation someplace in this process where I say, oh well, maybe at this point, um we should have just moved and and gone and taken action or or going forward, but why are we still, you know, each each time they come by, it's another it's another hit, it's another yeah, it's another cost.

So should the city at one point just stop and say, hey, let's move on to the well and the city is balancing trying to work with owners.

Yes, no, I get it.

No, yeah, I'm with you on that.

I know we all get that.

But it seems like you you're being, you know, they're trying to give you a break, but then by them also not giving you a break, you're also getting getting hit with this number each time they come by.

Yeah.

So one way of, so anyways, I I'm I'm sympathetic to both of what you what you've said.

Um clearly the procedures were were followed.

Clearly, Mr.

Virgil knew all about this all along the way.

Um, and then this question of um rectification in some way, shape, or form, and punitive in some other way, shape or form.

I agree with all of uh what you're saying.

I I um and I also just want to commend the city for for how how much you've done here, how much you've tried to work with with Mr.

Virgil.

I I just think it's really admirable, right?

It's kind of city I want to live in.

Right.

I don't know, one way perhaps of doing something logical here.

It's the first thought that I have.

I mean, one one way would be to set the start the clock on the administrative costs on uh June 9th, not October 8th, June 9th, when the compliance order was actually issued, which is as uh as uh assistant city attorney um Karen.

Uh hope you don't mind if I call you Karen.

Um you know had mentioned that uh moving from citation to compliance is is a big thing.

It's it's it's a big thing.

It's moving from a parking ticket to you know something a lot more serious.

So it's one way that I think that we might as a board might be able to think about it that way.

That yeah, I mean, I I think some administrative costs are are um um proper in the in this case.

So that would be one one way of of perhaps reaching a conclusion that seems somehow based in some kind of facts.

I don't have a spreadsheet and a calculator.

Someone could get the number.

I don't know what that I don't know what that number would look like starting the starting the clock on June 9th.

Attachment 14 page 72.

Yeah, I'd be fine with the starting o'clock at June 9th.

I'm I would be very happy with that.

I mean, I don't know what that number is.

I don't know if we um Christine, do we have to know the number in order to calculating it right now?

Does council have any issue with that for the city?

Obviously, um it's the board's prerogative.

I mean staff.

Sure.

That is within our ambit.

Was it in the input?

Yeah.

I would just clarify, you know, staff's main concern is compliance.

And the business, as far as staff is aware, while the property may have sold, the business is still operational.

And so tires are still being taken in on a daily basis currently.

Um so waste tires continue to accrue.

Um and so achieving compliance and getting that to stop and then cleaned out is staff's primary goal, yeah.

And yeah, I don't know if we can do this, uh, but I everything I am deciding is kind of premised on this belief that the property has been sold.

And so I don't know if we can like hold our opinion, stay our opinion until this is verified because everything I'm I'm going with is that this has been property has been sold.

And that this will my understanding cease operation.

So that's that's kind of what the backdrop I'm working with, but that that's not the backdrop I'm working with, and I may make other decisions.

So I don't know if there's a way that I can we can write an opinion and it's based on this actually being actually happening.

Christine, could you advise us on what would happen in terms of a continuance or anything like that?

Yeah, we you could continue it um for proof of sale.

Um this cratley did indicate that the code provides under section one-two point one five that the compliance order may be issued to any person responsible for the violation and or the property owner.

So how much the ownership falls into this equation um is up to the board, but it could be 100% against the property owner.

So um, but if it is playing a role, we could certainly um continue this for verification of the closure of escrow and the transfer.

That is how would it uh and you don't have to answer, but I was curious.

How would that change your analysis?

You think if it was still owner or not owner?

Um I I do think.

I I might be because I guess the thing is part of how I envision it is more than I need to I need to make sure this doesn't happen again.

How do how do I ensure that this does what powers do I have to ensure this isn't happening again?

I don't have apparently from what I'm hearing, I don't have to worry about that now of this happening again because it seems like the problem has resolved itself.

So then I can go from this problem been resolved.

So then how do I try to uh address the issues that the city has brought and also the dress of the issues that the uh the business owner has brought?

How do I how do I try to fix that problem?

I don't have to worry now, gonna get more complaints from people.

We're gonna have this fire that I'm concerned about and this other harm.

I don't those I don't have to worry about now.

I just gotta I just gotta solve this this part of the puzzle right here.

Except for the next three weeks, according to the compliance order.

Yes.

There's a three-week window to to actually get the fire hazard and correct potential harm to the environment and the neighborhood and so on and so forth.

So it's a window of three weeks, one way or the other, no matter who, right?

You have any thoughts on how you want to go with it.

Well, I I would be fine um moving moving forward with uh starting the administrative clock on on June 9th, and I would be fine.

Um because of the ambiguity about ownership, um, that the responsible party be Mr.

Virgil and um and not whoever it might be the the new owner.

I'm okay with that, but I just want to make sure that's so I'm double checking my math because I got two different numbers on each calculation.

So I'm I'm just doing this again a third time to see if it hits it this third time, sorry.

Is is it possible this calculation maybe should be formalized somewhere outside of this particular event right now?

Uh it's a it's a question, Christine.

Uh we could, we could fill in the blanks later.

It's um probably under three thousand dollars.

Um let me just check it one last time.

But yes, we could confirm it again outside of the proceeding.

My only Christian with doing that is uh if Mr.

Virgil decides to uh bring the case to superior court, and then it's gonna it's gonna be based on whatever order we give.

So if we give an order, his next level of recourse is to go to court um if he chooses the challenge.

So I would say if we have a properly crafted order, that's what we'd want.

If we end up making an order as opposed to continuing.

I can see if this matches any of your numbers, but the number I got was three thousand three hundred and sixty-eight dollars and sixty eight cents.

I have now gotten that same number um twice.

Okay, so three thousand three hundred and sixty-eight and sixty eight cents.

Is that what you said?

That's what I got.

So I've gotten that twice.

So I think that and you've gotten it once, so that's correct.

So we're we're essentially um as a board, we're uh however it ends up getting formally put into this.

Um we're agreeing that we'll take a vote, but I'm just we're we're agreeing to start the administrative clock on this issue on June 9th, and um as of um the I think it's the date of this hearing that uh additional uh if within if within three weeks um there is no action, then we move to the uh $50 uh per day after the three-week period.

We are uh we are confirming the $340 in citations or the I'm sorry, it was the daily going back 34 days to uh August 15th.

We're affirming that that is something we support.

Um and that's what we're that's what we're talking about.

Just 340 with the 50 on the other clock and 3000.

I that's so just to make sure I understand um administrative costs will have been accrued starting on June 9th.

Correct, and we determined that amount is being reduced um accordingly from 7,399.92 to $3,368.68.

That's for administrative costs.

And then for the penalties, um, you're confirming the $340 in penalties.

Yes.

Okay.

And um if these costs are paid in full, um in this proposed order, we have a deadline of October 31st.

Is that date staying the same?

Yes, then the $340 will be waived.

That's what the proposed order says.

So it's like it's charged, but if um gotcha.

That's what the proposed order says.

The $3,368 is paid by October 31st, 2025, then $340 will be waived.

If full compliance is not achieved by the deadline, then these penalties um will be immediately due and owing.

And then if full compliance is not achieved by October 9th, does this board agree to increase the penalties to $50 per day?

I think that's uh would be a good thing.

Okay, I agree.

Okay, and so I've maybe as a part of the motion there can be I've heard you all discuss this and say this, but confirmation on the factual findings, the penalties and costs and deadlines as I've just described, um, and that you would in addition authorize the board chair to um sign the administrative order as um set forth in the motion and what the modifications I described.

It's a mouthful voice.

It is a mouthful.

Um I'm ready to second it if someone's.

Let's see.

Um so we are uh agreeing um to uh start the administrative clock on June 9th or the amount that we've just discussed.

Um we uh have agreed on the um ten time ten dollars times thirty-four uh days that will be waived if the uh the um if Mr.

Virgil uh achieves I guess full compliance and pays the administrative costs that will be gone, but if after the end date um full compliance hasn't been achieved, um then uh he will start accruing uh fifty dollars a day um in non-compliance and we're agreeing that I can sign the uh order um once it's formally written.

It'll be need to be read rewritten.

Right.

Um there is a draft um in attachment sixteen that was updated um by the city and distributed this morning, and then um I will make the additional edits as described today for your signature.

Right.

Second.

Uh all in favor.

Aye, yeah.

Anybody opposed?

I can't, I don't think so.

All right.

Okay, it looks like the motion passed three to zero.

Thank you.

And I think with that we can close.

Sure.

Sure, yes.

Board member comments.

Does anyone have any comments they'd like to make?

I wish you look, sir.

Well comment.

Okay.

Looks like we are adjourned at eleven oh five.