you

The board consists of five members who are not employees of the city.

The board is an impartial decision maker.

The board is appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council.

Your board members are myself, Mr. Antapoleon as the chair, Mr. Fisher as the vice chair,

Mr. Boyd who will join us probably in about 20 to 30 minutes, Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Ahmad.

Additionally we have Lay Billings, the secretary of the board, Peter Lemos, code and housing

enforcement chief, Bocazali, principal building inspector, Avender Carr, counsel to the board.

Secretary please call roll.

Ablian.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Boyd.

Ahmad.

Here.

O'Brien.

Here.

All right at this time I will ask that everybody stand for the land acknowledgement and the pledge of allegiance.

We'll start with the land acknowledgement.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's Indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanon people, the southern Maydu Valley of the Plains, Miwok,

Patwin, Wintown's people and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today.

In the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation of Sacramento's Indigenous peoples history, contributions and lives.

In addition, we will do the pledge of allegiance.

All right, you may be seated.

All right.

For items two through six today on the agenda, we're here to consider the expenses incurred by the city in the notice and order and the repair demolition or securing of any building or structure done in the housing and dangerous buildings case before us together with any protests or objections.

The question here is are the fees, costs or other amounts claimed by the city reasonable and justified?

The board may revise, correct or modify the proposed charges as we deem just.

Once the sport is satisfied with the correctness of the charges,

we shall then make a decision confirming or rejecting the charges.

Any written protests and related information received have been forwarded to us for consideration in our decision.

You will hear our decision today and receive formal notification of our decision in the mail.

Our decision will be forwarded to the city council for a determination whether this hearing was conducted in accordance with the city code.

All right.

So each item will be called in order of those requesting to speak unless staff or board members request.

Otherwise, the owner representative should state their name and address and explain the nature of their appeal.

Please be concise.

Staff will identify themselves and provide a summary of the case, including the recommendation and then the owner can respond.

The secretary will swear in the appellants and city staff prior to each case.

All right.

Let's go ahead and get started.

Item one approval of the minutes of the November 13, 2024 meeting.

I'll move.

I'll second.

Tablion. Yes.

Fisher. Yes.

Ahmad. Yes.

O'Brien. Yes.

All right. Moving on.

Items number two and three will be heard consecutively or concurrently.

Sorry concurrently. I caught it.

So it'll be supervising building inspector Doug Pearson for Jason Martinoni.

And then we have Jake Tai and is it Lynn Hong?

All right.

Raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

All right. Supervising building inspector. Go ahead.

Okay.

Four.

Dash zero two eight nine nine.

L.C.

Address 59 oh.

118.

0121.

030.

0000.

8 is December 11.

Rising building inspector Doug Pearson presenting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll be back.

Okay.

So the case was open on July 20th.

Is the case closed?

Summary abatement for July 29th, 2024.

July 26th, 2024.

Building inspector case manager.

The case was closed.

And there is no.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

in 2024, so he went to the front door and knocked. No one answered. He posted the front

door with a dangerous building in the back yard, went around to the detached garage,

and there was a lady sleeping in the car parked in the driveway. The roll-up garage door was

partially open and it appears someone was living in the garage. He announced that the

local came out, a plane that due to the reoccurring power was inactive electrical service. For

a year he was posting the structure as a dangerous building and they were no longer able to stay

at that location.

By 29, 2024, building inspector case manager Jason arrived at the condo with the Sacramento

Police Department, POP team, and building inspector Dan Loughlin. The department POP team

contacted the occupants and informed them that this was considered a dangerous building.

There was a running generator in the garage in a car powering the structure of the

nonmetallic cable with a hardwired plug on the end. They were using it forward, that they had

plugged into the generator and then into the cable that was hardwired into the garage lighting

circuit to backfeed the electrical circuit. The POP team cleared the building of the

condo and exterior of the condo. The plug was being used in lieu of powering that were

being powered by the generator. There were conductors being used that were being powered

by the plug energized by the generator, the main service panels. The generator socket had

been damaged due to power theft and there was a broken hub on the underground. The generator

was being used to secure the structure. He posted the building, great construction,

the lock sets, installed a 2x4 above the garage roll-up door to secure it, the invoice, CDD

101-2-2, July 31, 2024 for 645. The notice and order was issued. Cloud and title were

requested due to the ongoing power theft which was invoice CDD HC205 dated 730-24 or $57.50.

The first building inspector, Dan Lother arrived on the site due to a call from multiple people

who were on site with building inspector Will E. He was called secured but the garage main

door had been breached and the generator was removed. He posted the property with a notice

and order called Greg.

The guy called back and said that he was still the owner and was coming over. The notice

permit. The owner was not contacted prior to issuing the notice and order was not sent

I didn't know about the situation with the electricity. Okay. I didn't know about the

problem he has with the electrical electricity shut off or anything like that. I have no

He already called someone coming over. Okay. I said nothing you can do about it. Dan showed

me the paper and told me what happened and walked me through the house. This is the very

first time I know the problem because the tenant is still paying me monthly a partial

payment at the time. He is still right now. He still owed me like about $4,300. As soon

as Dan called me, I rushed it over and Dan walked me through and told me the situation,

handed me the paperwork and basically locked me out. I can't, the CD basically take control

of the house and said okay, these are the problems, these are the issues that I need

to work to resolving it before the CD allowed me to come back in, take the possession of

the house and fix everything. So I did everything the CD asked me to do. So there are problems

with the plumbing, electrical, the generator, whatever, all of that violation. I worked

through everything trying to resolve it and by October something I'm done. So there, even

there's a part that the electrical panel, electrical go up to the panel over time, the

house is over 30 years, it got shifted and the conduit got disconnected. There's a gap

with the CD, didn't like that, said okay, I need to fix that. I tried to look in for

part and I couldn't find the part. I tried to call the electric company, they couldn't

find the part either. So it took like about a month later on to be able to find a part

and adapt it into fixing it. So the CD come out, inspect it and pass it and then I thought

I was done and then I start to work in the house, clean up and then Dan's happened that

there's some issue with the HLA, he knocked on the door, said are you ready for the final

inspection? I said what do you mean by final inspection? I already finished everything,

you gave me the key to go into the house. He said no, no, no, no, you need to fix everything

to make sure that we come by here to do a final check, which means it's required to

have heaters on, hot water is on, stove is working. So I was surprised, I said okay,

I was running around, rushing around, trying to fix all of that and the also alarm, the

thing, smoke alarm. So I tried to do all of that and had a final walk through on October

24th, according to this, that is the case closed and I believe that.

Another one, Dan was in there or Jason was in there, walk through and pass it. So then

I start to, we have to call county for time to dump out all of the junk. We can't even

walk into the house. The house, all of the door punch hole. They are like, every room

have hole in a wall. They are like hundred of nail in a wall because they running camera

and all of that. There are thousand of cockroaches running around. There are a piece of box,

food, dried and chicken bone, water all over places. I mean, I have to have the county

come over, pick full time, pick up the junk. I mean, literally each pile is like a size

of a van, the maximum that they see the lounge. So to clean all of that up. So that is first

thing. And now I have to hire people to spend money, to fix, take out the carpet, replace

all of the door, replace the wall, paint the house. Now even the tub, I found out that

somehow they drill a hole in the tub and the wall would come from the first floor, second

floor coming down, damage the wall. And now, I mean the process of hiring people to remove

the tub and remodel the bath, shower and even they take knife and carve into the sink.

Basically I have to redo the whole thing in the house. As of right now, it has already

cost me fifteen thousand dollars. And the tub and the shower is going to be cost me another

seven thousand dollars. I can't afford, and none of this is my fault. I try to help a

family, a single dad with three kids. Unfortunately, COVID came and economy down and he lost his

job because his company cutting manpower and all of that. So he tried to pay me. I didn't

know anything about the generator or because he make partial monthly payment. There is

no reason for me to go into the house to inspect. I took my tenant privacy, no reason

for me to go into the house to see that what is the condition of the house. So no one

call me anything. The very first time is from Dan call me and I rush it over right away.

And I do everything I can to fixing it. And as of right now, I'm still not done. I already

spent like fifteen thousand dollars and still the toilet need to be replayed. Sink need

to be replaced and the shower and tub. I cannot afford to pay this. And none of this is my

fault. No, completely understand. So I will just say we hear a lot of cases specifically

about landlord tenant issues. And with the city of Sacramento, they have no mechanism

to bill or go after the tenant. All the issues with the house stay with the owner of the

house. So anything that your tenant does you're responsible for for that house. The way the

city is set up because they don't have a way to go after the landlord or the tenant. They

only have a way to go after your personal property because they can put a lien on the

property. So that's why and one of the questions I was going to ask is are you registered with

the housing the rental housing inspection program? No. So that's one of the requirements

that you would also have to be registered with to rent out your property. Unfortunately,

I mean, we'll open up the board here, but I'm just I'm letting you know that we hear

these all the time. And I myself am a landlord and I've been hit by the city. We don't work

for the city, but I've been hit myself from bills from the city from things that my tenants

have done. And I've learned the hard way that you have to be very careful on who you select

sometimes as a as a renter. I will open it up though to the board. Any comments or questions

for the appellant? Anything else? And let me be very clear. I completely understand the

situation. But at the same time, the city had to come out and expend the costs and send

their staff out to review the house. They have to send the company out because by law,

they're required to board up the house if it's considered dangerous. So that's why

great construction, I believe you're being charged the amount of 13 18 99 for the secure

make costs of the property of the total amount. That's just the secure man 13 18 99 and then

the others are the cost of the city to go out there and to enforce when somebody calls

in and says that somebody is living in a dangerous housing. So again, just as a reminder, what

we're here to hear is are the expenses incurred by the city for the dangerous in housing case

before us. Are the fees cost or amounts claimed by the city reasonable and justified. So I

completely agree that the landlord or the tenant is the one that caused all the issues.

But the way the city is set up, those costs go on to you and then you are responsible

to go after the tenant since that's the person that you selected to be in that house. And

it is ultimately your property. And you can you can go after that person because you said

they owe you 4300. So you should be able to try and any cost that they incurred, you should

be able to try and attempt to collect if they cause those damages.

So, so as you may know that the reason here into this problem because he couldn't pay

he first of all, he couldn't pay me couldn't pay utility. Right. So that's why I got shut

off. So I doubt I can go after him. The second is, okay, so I understand the CD paid this.

But isn't that the CD already have a budget regardless of that come out to my house or

not the CD have a budget to pay for all of the staff regardless is already there. Right.

That's not the way this works. They work on the reimbursement for anything that they get

called out. They have they have an allotment, but I'll let Mr. Cosley or Mr. Lemos describe

how that works. They'll know more than I would.

They are budgeted annually to cover our costs for contractors, but the property owners are

responsible to basically reimburse the taxpayers for that budget comes from. So the taxpayers

dollars aren't paying for other people's property. It's a property owners themselves that are

responsible to maintain.

Thank you. And these are all from my understanding city codes that we don't we don't have a

we are just here to enforce the codes. We actually are not part of the city. So we didn't

create these codes or make these rules.

I know it's frustrating.

So it's it's there's some sort of consideration to cut this cost down because I can't really

I'm trying to do my best here. Already cost me so much money and I still have some more

to fix to have this thing up for me to rent it out again. I can afford to pay this.

So, Mr. Pearson, the last line says that the building right on site in the final inspection

was approved and the case is closed.

It was approved for bringing the house up to a habitability standard, although the owner

just testified he's now doing work without a permit. So he needs to get a permit for

us to come do another inspection.

No, it's the painting.

No, you just testified you're remodeling the kitchen and replacing the bathroom in the

shower.

No, no, okay. You can go out and look at the counter. There are no replacement account.

I replaced the paint, fixed the paint and replaced the door. It's it. I said I will

have people to fix the tub and the style. That is, I already have a contract with the

poll.

I will just say we can come out and inspect and see if I do anything.

Let me just state that if you replace the tub in the shower, any plumbing fixtures, any

electrical fixtures, or remodeled kitchens or bathrooms, you must have a permit. So you

can paint without a permit. You can replace the carpet or in flooring without a permit.

Anything else you also mentioned a toilet in there. So removing any of that stuff and

replacing it, you need a permit for it.

Right. I understand that.

Okay. So make sure everything is going to permit for that.

Right.

So luckily we're only here to hear this case. So if anything that you have outside of this,

we won't, we can't hear if there's still an outstanding issue.

Right. No, no, I, I, I, I, I, I, I talked with the contract, talk with Home Depot and

Lowe's. Okay. So that why the, the tub and the shower I have Home Depot to take care

of that. Okay. The kitchen.

Yeah.

I remodeled like five years ago. It's, it's there that I have not remodeled anything except

paint, replace window, no, no, the windows to be with Lowe's. So you can go out and inspect.

Only thing I did is paint, change door and floor.

Yep. Okay.

So I'll, don't rely on Home Depot to get the permits for you. They're your response.

Like this is a homeowner's responsibility. Okay.

So I'll open it. Oh, sorry.

That's okay.

Were you and, and you also need to be registered with our rental how to inspection program.

I will do that because that can land you back here if you're not registered.

And I will do that with the same people. Yeah. It's our department that does it. Okay. Sorry.

That's okay. I'm going to open it back up to the board. Do we have any comments, questions?

Well, I think the property owner was asking if there was any relief available. And yes,

this board does have the ability to perhaps reduce fees. If there is some justification,

in this case, these fees that have been charged are specific to actual cost, just, you know,

that the city has incurred for your case. And I mean, just in our experience, this is

actually very minimal in to the degree of the damage that was, was, you know, made to

your unit. So I do we have a reduction and do we have a recommendation or do we have

a motion? Sorry. Thank you.

So in that case, I will I'm ready to make a motion if there's no other question.

Go ahead.

So I will make a motion on item number two to uphold staff recommendation that this board

confirm the total charge of $1,597.50 for the notice and order for the property known as

5901 Mack Road Sacramento, California 95823 partial number 118-0121-030-000.

Second.

Tablion. Yes.

Fisher. Yes.

Mod. Yes.

O'Brien. Yes.

Do I have a motion for item three?

Item three, I make a motion to uphold staff recommendation to confirm the total charge

of $1,318.99 for the securement work performed by the city on the property known as 5901

Mack Road Sacramento, California 95823 partial number 118-0121-030-000.

Second.

Tablion. Yes.

Fisher. Yes.

Amad. Yes.

O'Brien. Yes.

All right. So the board has found in favor of the city that the city was justified in

the costs because the costs were incurred by the city themselves. However, I definitely

encourage you to make sure that your rental property, since especially they now know

that the property is not registered with rental housing and that you are still doing work.

So I would ensure if you could to try and get registered and any other permits necessary

for the property.

The final will be in the mail.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

So if it's not in front of us, you'll have to talk to either supervising building inspector

or who's somebody can usually work with him. If it's not in front of us, we don't get to,

I don't, I can't see it here.

Or you can, yeah. The problem is I can't see anything here because we can only see what's

the cases in front of us. We don't have access to the city documents.

We've got that because of waiting through the city.

I'll have to say now.

Are the fines done?

Right here.

It's like come up to like 4,000.

Yeah.

Thank you.

All right. Item number four.

Building inspector, William Eli.

Okay.

And for the record, the appellant did not show.

So we're going to have you read into the record.

Raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

That Bring it.

marks.

ainted penalty.

00 introduce nature and today, October 7,

2000 perform it was issued

infection

of 360.

Notice of less premise cloud was properly recorded at the Sacramento County

property owner was contacted prior to issuing a notice.

The property owner was sent on February 15, 2020.

The notice in order was sent to the property owner listed in the current title report.

It was served on March 26, 2020.

The green card certified mail.

It has received the information being presented this evening.

I have recommends that the board adopt the decision confirmed in charge of $380.

That's it.

Thank you.

So that's it.

I have a comment.

All right. Thank you.

And in addition, we have the appeal records, but there's nobody here.

So no other questions.

Do we have a?

So the appeal, it appeared that they were asking questions

and they were referencing administrative penalties

that aren't before us.

Remind me, Mr. Lemos or Mr. Cosley, administrative penalties,

it appears in the record that the inspector did issue

administrative penalties.

Those go through a different route, correct?

If somebody wanted to appeal those administrative penalties,

do they come to this board or do they

go through a different appeal process?

That's why they're not listed here.

But OK.

I've proved that the board accepts the decision,

confirming the total charge of $380 for the work

performed by the city on the property known as 3709 22nd

Avenue, APN number 0200273020000.

Second.

Kablion?

Yes.

Fisher?

Yes.

Ahmad?

Yes.

O'Brien?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Now we will call item number five, Inspector Lothar.

And Mr. Yang, Mrs. Yang, or whoever would like to,

we have a couple of seats up there.

Paul, Melody, Janelle, and Destiny.

Who do we have?

I'm assuming Paul and?

Oh, Joseph.

Oh, Joseph.

And Melody?

OK.

All right.

Yeah.

Item five and six.

Yes.

All right.

You're sworn in here momentarily.

I have all parties for items number five and six.

Please raise your right hand and answer the following question.

Do you solemnly swear under penalty of perjury

that the testimony and evidence that you give at this hearing

shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

All right.

Go ahead.

Items number five and six.

Case number two, three.

Paul, Joseph, and Melody.

Yes.

This is 311 Foreign Road Sacramento, California, 950.

Parcel number 04101200090012.

Case was opened up on December 8, 2024, and is currently closed.

On 12, 8, 23, I received a call at 05.30 AM

from a senior fire prevention officer, McDowell,

informing me of a two alarm fire and requested my assistance

on site due to the damage that has been done.

I arrived at 05.50 AM, met up with SPO officer McDowell,

and we spoke to the on-site chief and then

walked to the site to see if demo was going to be needed.

I could see walls and portions of the roof had already collapsed.

Firefighters were directed to attack the fire

from a defensive mode.

At 0702 AM, I spoke to supervising building

inspector Pearson and asked him for some assistance tracking

an owner down due to multiple owners

and because the building is broken into approximately 35

condominiums.

The owner of the majority, Mazar,

has the units 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, A, 21, B,

22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 30.

The cosmetology units are 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11,

owned by Trangnujen.

Trangnujen Vo, then unit 12 is owned by Paul Joseph Melody Yang,

and unit 15 is owned by Che Tran.

Based on my assessment, principal building inspector

Cosley declared the structure immediately dangerous at 840 AM.

I called P&P demolition.

There was no answer.

I left a voicemail asking them to return my call.

At 850 AM, I called GW demolition.

They were put on standby to respond to the location

once the structure was released by Sacramento Fire Department

to demo the remaining structure.

At 9 AM, Sacramento utilities arrived on scene

to unclog drains on Florin Road due to the flooding of the west

bound lanes of Florin Road.

At 10 AM, PBI Cosley arrived on scene.

I walked him around the property at 10, 20 AM.

Sacramento Fire Battalion Chief informed us

that they would be releasing the structure as soon

as the arson investigators were done with their photos

and documentation of the site.

I contacted GW demolition and gave the green light

to respond to the location at 11 to the location.

At 11.15 AM, GW demolition arrived on scene

to demo 75% of the structure due to the front sections

were built out of CMU block, and the fire

was contained in that area.

On December 10, 2023, at 0545 hours,

on-call building inspector Proc received a call from City 311

operator requesting to contact the on-duty Sacramento Fire

Department Battalion Chief who is on site of a massive fire

at 3811 Florin Road.

He spoke to Sacramento Fire Department Battalion Chief

Number 2, Ediker, who informed him

that this was a second large fire in the last three days

at this strip mall located at 3811 Florin Road.

When the original fire occurred the past Friday on 12.8,

the city had collapsed about 75% of the fire damage

structure due to immediately dangerous conditions,

and now the remaining portions of the structure

are heavily damaged and need further structural assessment.

PBI Cosley responded to the site as well.

And due to the fire events occurring this past Friday

on 12.8 this morning, 12.10, the structure integrity

of the remaining portions of the strip mall

were found to be substantially compromised.

The current site conditions were determined

to be immediately dangerous by definition

and existed to such an extent that if remained unabated

would substantially endanger the health and safety

of the general welfare of the public.

At 07.12 hours, GW demolition was contacted

and services requested to collapse

the remainder of the fire damage strip mall, which

for the most part was already reduced to nothing

due to two separate fire incidences.

At 08.25 hours, Gary with GW arrived

and it was further discovered that there

was additional gas meters above the roof line

on the hair and nail salon above the vacant unit

at the front portion of the building

and not known whether the gas lines were energized or not.

At 040 hours, GW demolition had completed the collapse,

collapsing the remaining portions of the strip mall.

January 4th, 2024, I requested the notice and order letter

be sent out due to all the owners

and placed a cloud on the property.

On February 14th of 24, I was on site

due to a complaint to the fence being knocked down

and it was time for the 30-day inspection.

I found that 70 lineal feet were knocked down.

Three holes cut through the fence.

I called Ellen on fencing to make repairs.

I also called the code officer to see when the two cars were

going to be towed off.

I received a call from a Yana Benjamin, who

is the owner's abatement, majority owner's abatement

contractor, letting me know he was out on site collecting

the samples he needed.

I have not heard from the owner or his rep.

No permits have been pulled or requested.

Since Yana had informed me of progress,

I will withhold the first administrative penalty.

But I will be issuing the first monthly monitoring fee of $380.

March 19th of 2024, I arrived at the property at 11.35 AM.

I found that 60 lineal feet of the fence

was laying on the ground and three sections

had been taken apart.

One section cut before I had one section cut.

Before I arrived, BIE Lee arrived and chased off a squatter

living in the SUV in the back.

I called Ellen on fence to make the repairs.

I spoke to the code officer, Vang,

about the two cars on the property.

He said that they were scheduled to be removed on Monday,

the 20th, 2024.

I have not heard from the owner, Maz, or the other owners

on any progress on pulling a permit.

I will be requesting an administrative penalty of $1,000

and a 305 monitoring fee.

On April 24th, 2024, I had arrived at the property at 12.47

PM, found that the property is secured.

I have not heard from the owner, Maz, or the other owners

on any progress on pulling a permit.

The last time I had spoke to Chris the rep for Maz,

I told him to have P&P revise their bid

and not to remove any of the asphalt.

I have not heard back.

I'll be requesting an administrative penalty of $2,000

and a monitoring fee of $305.

I arrived on site with B.I. Mortononi.

Oh, excuse me.

June 3rd, 2024, I had arrived on site with B.I.

Mortononi for a 30-day inspection.

We found multiple panels cut, two people on site,

one male, one female.

We instructed them to leave and not return.

Called Ellen and Fencing to ask them to replace the damaged

panels.

They were unable to get there until the next day.

They said they would call when they were in route.

And I also called the code officer,

Vang, to inquire about the four-foot-tall Browngrass

junk and debris.

He said they are not going for another warrant

to abate the property.

I am requesting a $3,000 administrative penalty, which

is not being appealed here today, and a $305 monitoring fee

to be issued, which is being appealed here today.

June 7th, 2024, I sent an email to Maz and his rep, Chris.

Good morning.

You asked me to have the city start the demo removal

due to not being able to get all owners to come together.

I am informing you the process has begun.

The city's contractor is pulling the permit,

and I will let you know when the work is set to begin.

June 8th, 2024, permits were issued.

September 10th, 2024, GW called for their final inspection,

approved.

All work is now complete, and we'll

be closing all housing cases as well.

On September 18th, 2024, I approved K2s

for the completion of the emergency demo on 9.4.2024

for GW Invoice 11890 and attached it to the case.

The invoices of this property were split into four invoices

per parcels and percentages, which

is being appealed here today.

Build owner percentages.

Paul Joseph and Melody Yang were or are the owners of unit 12

was billed for a total of 2.72% of the total cost

of the demolition.

K Tran is the owner of units 15 was

billed a total of 1.22 of the total of the cost of the demolition.

Moz, the majority holder, was billed 80.9%

of the total cost of the demolition.

Trang Nguyen is the owner of units 13, 7, 9, and 11

was billed for his total cost of 15.2% of the total cost

of the demolition.

I recommend that the board adopts a decision confirming

the total charges of $305 for the work performed by the city

on the property known as 3811 Florin Road.

Sacramento, California, APN number 04101200090012.

Staff also recommends the board adopt confirming

the total charges of $4,894 for the completion

of the demolition work performed by the city on the property known

as 3811 Florin Road, Sacramento, California, 04101200090012.

I've also included the violation list and case photos.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. and Mrs. Yang.

I don't know what to say in terms of this situation.

I think at the early beginning, we had just looking through all

of these pictures with the fires, brought back a lot of memories

and tears to my eyes.

I hope that as the owner of unit number 12

was to give back to the community, say, ministry.

And so that's why we acquired that property

in order to give back.

And we have put a lot of work to the facility and the pangs

in fixing it up.

We have done counseling, done ministry to the Hmong community,

but they don't have churches to go to or churches to refuse

to do the funerals.

We have done that.

We've helped young people that they want to commit suicide,

and they will walk with the family and will help them.

And at the end, the fire was not caused by us.

And it will have good intention to do.

And now we're being built with all of these expenses.

How am I going to be able to pay for that?

We have lost that ministry office.

And sadly, we're hoping that we'll

be able to acquire insurance in 2025

as we begin the new year.

But we don't have anything.

We lost everything.

And everything that I work for, as a self-employee,

and I give back to the community.

There's no way that my family and I, we, for our survival,

currently will receive an EBT, full stamps.

My kids aren't awake.

How are we able to pay this back?

It was not all doing.

And just looking at this picture brought tears to my eyes.

Like the day that we were there.

The day that we were there at the fire.

The image that flashed through my mind was the war in Laos.

And we escaped Laos to come to America

to have freedom of religion.

And we hope and pray as a clergy person, as a pastor,

that we will be able to get back to the community.

But things don't work out the way that we had planned.

But that has not stopped us from doing the work of God.

And so I come here today, yes, but there are fees

and there are penalties.

But there's no way that me, my wife, are able to pay for this.

My wife went through surgery.

We have four young children at home, just not able to work.

And I do what I can with my financial ministry

to get back to the community.

So I plead with you that we need your help.

There has been no help from anybody, from the city or anybody.

There has not been any communication.

Yes, there are people that they have a lot of shares,

a lot of units in there.

But they have money and they have power.

And as a clergy person, I don't.

And the only thing that I have is God.

And God, go before me.

So I come to you to plead for your help in this situation.

Because we are not receiving any help from anybody.

We have to go from it.

There has been zero contribution to help us with our ministry.

But that doesn't stop us from giving.

And we'll continue to give as much as we can.

And I do not want the financial thing,

I give my time helping people.

So I plead for your help that what can we do?

And then to move beyond this.

And then we call ourselves the pain.

Just look at this image here.

I think tears to my eyes.

They will work so hard.

And I see my little girl fade.

The day that we were able to go back in.

It was three years she came by.

And she put her hand together at the site.

And she prayed, say, daddy, there's no more church.

Yeah, there's no more church.

And that's a reality to my family going through.

And so what you see here tonight is my family.

We'll come to plead for your help that we can't do this.

My last page, Chef, with this little girl,

can't do this.

My last page, Chef, with this month was over $150

from my financial ministry.

And how can we pay for $5,000?

There's additional fees that are becoming.

If I can do volunteer work, I will continue to do

volunteer work.

But I don't have the financial means to pay this.

I don't know what you say.

But that's where we are.

Thank you.

I will ask a question.

I'm not sure if this is going to be for supervising building

inspector or building inspector or Peter.

But since this was technically classified

as either apartment or a condo, he

doesn't own the property itself.

He doesn't own the parcel.

Is that correct?

So what is this attached to?

The property was very ironic that the parking lot and such

that was all part of the use of this property

was actually didn't have an ownership.

But it was a large structure with several units.

So he owned basically his condo.

And that's why the total demo.

The cost of the total demo.

But I mean, so right now, I get the building is gone.

But he has no actual ownership, right, of anything?

He still owns the parcel.

He still owns 2% of the parcel?

Well, you know, it's its own parcel.

It's 2% of the structure.

He still owns that part of that parcel.

So he's still a third owner with two other.

He's still the owner of the unit number 12.

What it is, maybe it's just that.

I don't know, maybe it's an empty lot or whatever.

So there's nothing you can do with that.

There is actually a property line.

So he owns that physical property on within that parcel.

There's an outside parcel and then there's interior parcels.

There's a physical property line he owns.

So I guess my question that I'm asking is, I'm not sure.

Do you plan on doing anything with that?

Or I mean, if the city is enforcing,

are you giving it up to the city?

Or are you planning on rebuilding and using that?

We don't have any financial means to rebuild.

I mean, I mean, like, miles.

I mean, miles.

I have not even met.

There's no, only the rep person I've been talking to

is Chris.

I have not even met with, you know, miles.

I don't even know what he looks like.

And so there's no, I mean, for us as a family, you know.

That's why I'm asking to see if there's anything

that the city can do instead.

Like if they decide to give up ownership,

is that an option if they don't want it?

So ultimately, if they don't pay the charges,

whatever, for the demolition fees and other fees,

they become assessments, which is part of what we do here

is move them over to assessments.

They go into the tax of the property.

Anybody who wants to do anything with that

and whole property will need to acquire theirs

and they will have to pay all of that at the tax,

assess as part of the tax lien.

The city doesn't take the property.

The city doesn't, or close on property like that.

It would go over to the,

ultimately that's for anybody to develop this property

and all of that rest of that,

they're going to need this parcel also.

I guess what I'm saying is if he decided not to pay,

it's not gonna go against his credit or anything like that.

It's going to go again,

it will be against, probably against his credit,

probably already is,

but it's going to be assessed onto the property tax.

It's, there's a personal obligation part of it

and there's also the actual just,

the later part that would be reimbursed

through the taxes for.

Do we have any questions from the board?

I just want to ask a question about the percent.

So how was that applied?

I see unit 15 only had 1.22%.

How did you guys came up with the percent?

The percentage was broken down for what was recorded

for the square footage of their unit.

So unit 15 is smaller than unit 12.

And then what they, the percentage of what they owned

per the common areas, the breezeway that went down the middle,

the building appeared to be one building,

but if you look at it closer,

it's four individual buildings with a breezeway

that over hung over the middle of the building itself

and had across breezeway as well.

Each one of the owners owned a portion of that

for their clientele to walk through it.

It's recorded on County parcel view

for the percentages of who owns what.

So that's what we based it on.

The County parcel bomb actually did the math.

You didn't do the math.

Correct.

Are we all off by one?

We might be.

I may have stolen this one.

Go ahead, I'm sure you can.

Sorry.

Yeah, I was weird.

I know I've been here in a while.

No problem.

A couple of questions that I'm glad that you stated

that the County did the math because my math,

unless my math is off, we come at 100.0,

excuse me, 100.04%, 4% above 100%.

Somebody needs to knock off that two tens,

two 100% in the math so that can be passed on.

That might be $3, $4, who knows,

but 100.04%, you can't get to that number.

It has to stop at, hello,

I guess they don't want to hear me speak.

It has to stop at 100.

So just clarifying that the breakdown in the math,

Doug, you're kind of looking at me like, huh?

We rounded the numbers, not because when we.

Rounded some of the numbers up.

I guess you, but rounding up,

so you still went above 100.

So maybe next time just round down,

but as we'll state at the county,

we'll do the math and not the city then, right?

But yeah, the fees were actually,

we used percentages of the fees and,

if they were above five, I rounded up.

I get you, well, not belittling the point, but just.

That's why the numbers could be off by a percent or two.

Yeah, and to that, let's just say,

that's just a starting point.

Does someone have to pay above the 100%?

I mean, by the rounding up,

it'll save them one or two bucks, but hey.

We took the total amount of the demolition

and the bills were divided up.

So the total amount of the demolition

was divided up between all the bills.

I'm with you.

Equals the amount.

So the little percentages were right there at.

Okay, still didn't answer my question,

but I'm with you.

Now, just wanted to bring that out,

that it wasn't 100.

We didn't make any money on the deal.

No, I hear you.

Just wanted to clarify,

because I thought maybe my math was off.

I'm with you.

I'm with you.

No problem.

Minister Yang, I appreciate your thoughts

and your feelings on this situation.

And as you stated, you were at no fault

by your volition for causing the fire,

which I didn't hear, I may have missed it.

Hold on one second.

Has the fire been declared arson and or cause?

If you stated I missed it.

No, I can't.

I don't have knowledge of that.

Due to the investigation from the fire department.

I don't know if it's ongoing still,

but that's not our area.

Just curious.

Okay, thank you.

I think with that, sir,

what I don't understand is that the fire,

it did not start from my unit.

It's from the other side of the building.

So the building is just the way it starts from here.

It sprays all the money in it, it's over here.

And so it's very suspicious.

I keep asking people for answer.

Why would anybody set up a fire

on December the 10th on the Friday?

The job being finished at the front of the building,

there was still two units still standing.

Why would somebody come back on Sunday,

the 10th, and to finish the job?

That's what I don't understand.

Why were two fires conceptually

within that we can take place within that timeframe?

And nobody has been able to give me the answer.

What's the cause of the fire?

And I don't know.

Or two separate fires.

Right, I'm with you.

Mr. Yang, I understand your thought on that.

And that's the question that you have to continue

to go after, not go after,

but speak with the fire inspector to find out that answer.

As some of us know, the multitudes of fires in strip malls

throughout South Sacramento in particular,

I can speak to this because I am privy to that information,

are well above the number of,

which would be stated as a norm.

Not stating that your ownership piece was a part of,

that total body of different arsons that have happened

specifically in South Sacramento

of minority owned properties.

I'm gonna go to that line.

I could go further, which I see by your head nod.

You're already understanding what I'm stating to you,

but let me add something that may help you.

Again, I'm stating my opinion based on facts

that are readily available to the public, not subjective.

So for clarity, my previous statement.

Something, the unfortunate side being that you are an owner

in a, let's go with the puzzle.

You are an owner, one of the pieces of the puzzle.

You need all of the pieces to make the entire property whole

because it happened into your piece

with the rest of the puzzle.

You're stuck with the bill.

There's no way around that.

What may help the, I believe the city of Sacramento does have,

I know the state of California does have,

and I know the federal government does have,

but also check with the county of Sacramento,

victims assistance into which the number,

well, I'm gonna say the number,

the amount on the federal side,

may be okay.

So with that, when you have time, I won't give advice.

I'm just, I'll restate for, I can't give legal advice.

There is victims assistance in the federal government,

and I do believe the city of Sacramento has that as well.

Again, the county may in the state,

excuse me, the state and the federal do have,

I believe the city as well, the county may.

So that may help you, that may help you.

The ramping this up, the unfortunate side.

You have the contact information.

That I can't give you,

because I can't offer and I can't give direction.

I can just put forth information

that is known to the general public.

So where can I find it as in the general public?

I can not recommending, but if I was to look for something,

I would go online to look for something.

The concluding, it's an unfortunate circumstance,

and it hasn't stopped, and it's not just El Sacramento,

but if in District 2, for those who aren't familiar,

District 2 is Dill Passill Heights.

It's the number of fires out in strip malls

by minority owners is happening,

has happened and is happening out there as well.

Again, I'm just offering information

that is publicly known and not making a subjective statement.

To that, let me ask, I believe there's no more question,

so I am going to, my apologies.

Other board members want to speak before I'd like to come back

and make a motion.

Good, Mr. Cosley.

I just wanted to get clarity from you, C. Yang.

Did you mention that you're not able to get insurance

for 2025 or you did not have insurance at the time of the fire?

I did not have insurance at the time.

You did not have insurance?

I did not.

I did not.

Thank you.

Also everything, yes.

Ms. O'Brien?

So I'm a little confused.

I've heard that it was a residential property,

and I heard that it was a strip mall.

So it sounds like it was a strip mall.

It is a strip mall.

But we were referring to them as condos.

The only way we can describe them,

they're a commercial condo

because they're individual properties owned.

Gotcha.

There have been times where the city has allowed them

to be built and subdivided,

but they actually get property lines

like a condominium or townhouse.

But it was for similarity purposes.

It wasn't the condo.

We call them commercial condos

so people can visualize it.

I guess I just have one more question maybe for the city.

Just to help him out,

and I want to make sure that

if he doesn't want to keep this property,

is does he have an option to go to the other owners

and offer to just quick claim deed this property to them?

And they would for $5,199 take on the rest of that.

I mean, if that's something he's willing to do.

That property under discretion,

the city wouldn't be in.

That'll his asset.

Because it would transfer the whoever the new owner is,

most likely, or it would have to be taken care of

through escrow.

The process of somebody buys a property

that has code enforcement,

leans, penalties or assessments,

as the purchaser would do a payoff demand,

like the title would have to be cleared

in order for them to close.

Okay.

Do we have a motion or another comment?

I'm sorry, yeah.

I do have a motion.

Do you have another question?

Well, I just, no, go ahead.

The, I was going to go down that same road

in regards to quick, quick claim deed,

but at the same time,

one of the other smaller minority owner would not,

I wouldn't see purchase, but here's the downside.

The owner, Mr. Yang, Mr. Yang hasn't even met

the actual majority property owner of,

by these numbers, 80% of the property is owned

by the Moz, so forth, so forth.

Let me ask you a question.

The chair, can we put a pause on a determination

for say one, oh, not next week, sorry, Ron.

I mean, we could put a pause, but here's the thing.

If he doesn't want the property,

and let's say hypothetically,

we uphold the $5,000 fee instead of him paying

the $5,000 fee and he truly doesn't want it,

he can go to the majority owner and say,

I would be willing to sell you my share

and just give it to him, possibly.

So we can, because I had originally considered

holding it, having him go,

but what's the point of holding it if he can,

because he doesn't have to pay it.

Even if we uphold this, he can go after the fact.

He doesn't have to wait for, so I thought of it both ways.

I thought about pushing it off,

but then I just didn't see,

even if we decide to uphold the fees

and he no longer wants the parcel,

and I'm assuming there's no loan on the part, on yours?

There's nothing we pay, I'll take it sometime.

George, let me share this with you as the chair.

At one point, when I talked to Chris,

who's the representative of Moz,

and their thing was out of everything else,

and I think the only offer, I think $6,000, $7,000, that's it.

They offer what?

$6,000, $7,000.

For what?

For my piece of...

That $6,000, $7,000 would be enough

to cover the $51,999.

It doesn't even cover the other fees coming up too.

I think there's another one,

another hearing that I'm taking place.

Are there additional fees still being assessed

to the property?

Yes, I do believe there's a DLHO next week scheduled

for the administrative penalties.

Okay.

I mean, we can only hear what's in front of us today,

but go ahead.

So there were several owners, right?

Several parcels.

Monitoring fee is one of the fees that is at issue today.

Was that monitoring fee charged to each of the owners?

Yes, ma'am.

What is it resulted in, let's say, eight different owners,

eight different...

No, it'd be four different owners,

four different administrative penalties,

four different admin penalties,

and four different notice and orders that were issued.

Property.

Okay.

And can I maybe ask Mr. Cozzelier and Mr. Lemos,

the admin fee portion of the demolition costs?

I think it's $1,200.

Oh, it's on here.

Is that a percentage of the contractor's cost?

Is that how those admin fees are established?

Those admin fees are to help you recover your cost

of contracting and...

There's no admin fees on here.

No, not on the...

There's only demolition costs and a monitoring fee.

For today's hearing, there's only the demolition...

Demolition of $48.94 in a monitoring fee of $305.

And then next week you'll have...

Which won't be us.

I'm looking at the invoice for the demolition.

They broke it out in this staff recommendation.

I see.

You're asking about the county

or the city's administrative fees, right?

So it says the demolition costs are $4,894.

Right.

Okay.

If you go to the invoice,

which is item...

Or page...

Is it the last page?

Thank you.

So if you go to page 20,

the demolition cost is $3,624, not $48, etc.

It's $48 because of the admin fee of $1270.

So you're saying that the admin costs is $3624.

Where's the $1270?

Is that the gray construction admin fee?

The city, it's a city fee.

Yes, that's not gonna be the admin penalty that's in...

No, it's separate.

Yeah, that's...

No, no, no, no, it's not...

And it just wants to know what it is, right?

The admin fee does not go to the contractor.

The admin fee is collected...

My question is,

is the admin fee that is collected here, $1270,

collected by the city to recover city staff cost?

We have somebody in the back shaking your head.

I have a head shaking, yes.

It is correct, it's...

Yes.

That is a city fee.

It's a city fee for the...

My point is he's asserting a financial hardship.

And we do have the ability to reduce fees

in light of financial hardships.

And so I think I would like to propose

if we're interested in perhaps waiving the monitoring fee.

Are you saying that...

I think the city staff was cost were recovered

by charging other owners that fee as well.

Are you saying removing the $1270?

And then...

The $305.

Staff does do some...

Yeah.

They do work.

Go ahead.

Make a...

Oh, hold on.

For clarity, the $1270 is per owner or $1270 total?

The $1270 is on this which they receive.

So that means other people got a probably percentage

of that as well or they got their own $1270?

Well, the total is $1270 according to page 20

on the invoice.

That's his invoice though.

The owner got invoice that because there's separate

invoicing for each owner.

We had to break this out for separate invoicing.

So there was four times the administrative cost

to do this.

Because there were four separate people.

We had to do four separate invoices,

four separate everything.

Then there were four people that have the right

to come and appeal.

No, no.

The owner got that admin fee.

Yep, thank you for that.

Wow.

Okay.

Go ahead, Ms. O'Brien.

Or whoever wanted to make a motion, I believe.

Did you wanna...

So I was, I would like to propose that we waive

$05,

reduce the admin fee.

All right, so then if I'm doing my math with a calculator,

those are separate items.

And that was everything I wanted to mention.

I think we do separate motions for each item.

Yes.

So let's do this.

Do you wanna waive the 305?

Okay, so I'll make a motion.

Motion, do that.

Let's do that first.

Go ahead.

I'd like to, oh, I need to get to another page.

So I have all that in full handy.

So for item five,

I would like to recommend that the board does not confirm

the total charge of 305,

reducing that to zero for the work performed by the city

on the property known as 3811,

Florin Road, Sacramento, parcel number 041-012-009-0012.

Second.

Kablion.

Yes.

Fisher.

Yes.

Amad.

Yes.

Boyd.

Aye.

O'Brien.

Yes.

All right, Mr. Yang, for your first item,

item that we're hearing number five,

the 305 dollar charge has been waived

and you will receive notice in the mail about item five.

We'll move on to item number six.

I'd like to make a motion

using the information that was discussed here

behind the dais that we postpone

the current item until next month's meeting,

just giving minister,

or giving minister Yang and his wife an opportunity

to discuss with the ownership a possible purchase

and then at which time next,

in the next ACAA meeting,

a motion will be made based upon the information

that the minister brings back.

My only concern with,

I know you're making your suggesting,

did you make the motion or Fisher?

Okay.

I'm making the motion on this reason

because of the livelihood,

which the minister just stated is now taken away

from the opportunity to meet current livelihood.

So,

tacking on a credit hit of this nature,

knowing he won't be able to pay

is an undue burden in my opinion.

I mean, before the motion goes through,

do you wanna,

because my only concern is can he come back

and do this again?

I don't know if he lives locally or what he does.

And so that's,

do you wanna just make sure that's something he wants,

but that's up to you?

Well, his ministry is on Florin Road, so.

That's true, yes.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I was,

because I had to think about that for a minute.

Why, okay.

I am making a motion that the

total charge of fourth,

no, that's not the total charge.

Yes, that is, sorry.

The total charge of $4894 be postponed.

Let me back that up.

That the total charge of $4894 even

for the completion of the demo work performed by the city

on the property known as 3811 Florin Road Sacramento,

APN number 04012009001 to be postponed

to the next agendized HCA meeting

for which time Minister Yang can come back

with prior to the meeting information

if he is still owner of said property,

and at which time we will make a motion

in regards to the F4 mentioned dollar amount.

I think she's waiting because I don't know is the problem.

I'm not sure.

I know what.

Can I offer something?

Is that okay?

Yeah, go ahead.

It's okay.

I think I met, I talked to Chris.

On bottom line, they told me that they can only pay $6,000,

$7,000 for my unit.

That doesn't even cover the cost.

What are your costs approximately?

Huh?

What are your costs?

Cost would be here, and then,

I think there's another $6,000 penalty.

Another $6,000 penalty?

Total, total, total, total.

Now without any kind of charges, it's $3,300.

Yes.

Okay, well, that's, I'll vote no.

And then there are some that have already been

especially assessed.

So in that case, it's not going to help the situation.

There's no way that even that that's going to work for them.

So at this point on that motion, I vote no on mine.

So then go ahead.

And with that, you might plead to you guys

I know that the city is inquiry at cost.

But yes, they did work.

Yes, I have work.

I have to get back to this community.

I have given back my life to this community.

In doing something good at the end,

I have to either put full on the table with EBT

for my four children at home.

I can't do it.

We understand.

And I plead, you know, particularly, yes,

you think about reducing 50% of the cost.

50%, 50%, 1% is 1%.

It's a penny for me right now.

It's not that I'm greedy.

It's not that I'm for miles and everybody else.

Yes, they have a lot of shares.

They have money.

They have power.

For somebody like me as a clergy person,

my heart is about the community.

That's why we end up in South Sacramento

to get back to the community.

And I plead, okay, as God as my witness,

that is the situation that I'm at.

And I forward to you my EBT statement,

how much we get.

And my last paycheck for the month of November,

I haven't even had nothing for December.

And that's my situation,

dear friends, brothers and sisters.

Okay, hold on one second, Mr. Yang.

Let's go ahead and continue.

So we have a first, the second, I believe,

let's go ahead and continue.

So we have a first, the second, I voted no.

Let's go down the line.

Is there?

No.

Ahmad.

Boyd.

Hi.

Brian.

No.

All right.

So the motion did not pass to move forward to,

do I have a different motion from any of the board members?

Go ahead.

So the admin fees that you guys are charging,

1270, is it proportional to that percent of the parcel

or is it like 1270 for all four people?

The administrative fees are not proportional.

Only the demolition is proportional for the total cost.

The other admin and monitoring fees were individual by the case number.

So there is no proportion on that because it took so long

to get anybody to respond to all got fees.

We can, we can lower it to whatever you would like.

If you'd like to make a motion or if anybody would like to make a new motion,

we can lower it to whatever.

So that's the only problem.

The, I think mathematically the problem with proportion,

trying to proportion the admin fee is that I think for,

for proportions, you would have to add up the city's cost that they're trying

to recover with that admin fee and then divided up by that 2%,

you know, definition.

And yet I think their admin fees are set as a price, correct?

Admin fees are based on each case,

the work that has to be done for each case.

But there, I mean, are they set in your fee schedule?

Yes, the admin fee is set for demolition.

So there's no percentage, there's that full 1260 each person got,

whatever it was, times four, yes.

So, yeah, that's not a percentage.

They received that full 1260.

Yeah, because that's, that's what the auditor determined it costs for us

to administrate the demolition, all the, all the paperwork and invoicing that goes with it.

So, oh.

So this 3624 is then proportional for that demo alone, right?

Yes.

The amount of the demolition is proportional for the demolition, not the admin fee.

Okay.

So the admin fee was 1270 for the 50% owner and 1270 for the 2% owner.

Yes, correct.

Yes.

Please don't try and do the math on that.

We treat each demolition as its own case.

Each of them is their own demolition, each received their own fee.

So, because each one of them are, it's basically four demolitions.

If we went out and had to summarily abate a shed, it would still be $1270 if the shed was over 120 feet.

And so, it doesn't matter if it's a mansion, that same fee, because that's the cost of the city work to do a demolition,

all the processing of the paperwork, the processing for the insurance bids, all of that.

We actually did four of them on, even though it's one big property, we did four separate actions.

So with that, do I have a motion?

I want to make a motion that we waive these fees, make them $0, $1270.

Make a formal motion for it.

I want to make a motion that we make 1270 to 0 for property 3811 Florian Road, number 12.

Item agenda number 6.

I'm confused.

What are you doing confirming, so what is your total, are you asking for a total charge or are you wiping all of the charges?

I'm just wiping in $1270.

Okay, so you're saying the $4,894 minus the $1270.

Okay, so I'm going.

$3624.

$3624.

Let's say that.

Okay, just minus mine.

Wait, so what am I doing again?

So it sounds like if I'm understanding you're wiping the $1260 and leaving the other, so that would be $3624.

Yes.

Go ahead, take it from there.

All right, so let me do the math real quick.

No, what?

The math is $3624.

That is the math.

$3624.

Yeah, $3624.

So I just want to make a motion confirming the total charge of $3624, the completion of the demo work performed by the city on the property known as 3811 Florian Road Sacramento APN 0410120090012.

Second.

And Tablion.

Yes.

Fisher.

Yes.

Amad.

Yes.

Void.

Aye.

O'Brien.

So I apologize.

That took a little bit of time.

We have decided to reduce the fee.

So your first one, we've already talked about the 305 has been waived.

The second on item number six has been reduced down to $3624.

However, again, we still can encourage you to work to try and get whatever costs down.

I know you have additional hearings scheduled to wipe additional fees and what is left hopefully will be close enough because we have to keep in mind that some of the costs are going to be reduced.

So I just want to keep in mind that some of these fees, the city just got paid nothing for their work.

So now all they're going to do is reimburse great construction for the work they did in demolishing the property.

But I would try and get as much as you can down and then get rid of the property before the fees continue to add up at that point.

So you will get our final ruling in the mail.

But that should be it for the day.

Thank you everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I know he's struggling financially.

So are you guys going to be sending him all the options that?

I mean, like payment plan stuff like that.

Is that something?

And have a payment plan with this one, the city.

Thank you.

And then don't forget, Mr. Boyd's suggestion about looking at those victims funds.

Thank you so much board.

God bless you.

Pray for our ministry.

All right.

Moving on to item seven, housing endangers building cost recovery and contested.

Following lines shall be heard as blanket items.

City staff recommends that the board adopt a decision confirming the total charge noted by the each agenda line for the expenses incurred by the city in the enforcement.

Of the provisions of the housing code and or dangerous buildings code with respect to the property known by the physical address and or parcel parcel number APN as noted within each agenda line for item number seven.

Lines through lines one through 36 lines 38 through 62 lines 65 through 110.

Oh, thank you.

Yes?

Yes sir.

Yes.

Ahmaud.

Boyd.

Hi.

O'Brien.

Yes.

All right.

Moving on to item number.

Any comments?

Questions of the board.

What was that?

Yeah.

We did.

Yeah.

Those are the first thing I said after the yeah.

after the yeah we did no problem mr. Boyd if anybody has any information I was

just checking on former chair very Chamberlain I'm not aware I asked last

week to our last month thank you

nice was that I was in a conference with him in October end of October and he

was well and preparing for his retirement vacation at the end of the year

and that's it good to hear thank you thank you everybody thank you just to be

clear we didn't have any public comment right any other all right meetings adjourned