[B. REGULAR SESSION - CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:09]
          DO WE HAVE ANY UPDATES FROM ANY OTHER MEMBERS THAT MIGHT BE ON THEIR WAY? I DO NOT. OKAY. SO, MISS HAWKINS, WOULD YOU PLEASE. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALRIGHTY. NOW THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM. I'M GOING TO OPEN OUR MEETING AT 6:02 P.M. TODAY'S DATE IS THURSDAY, MAY 21ST, 2026. CAN WE START WITH THE 
          [A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
PLEDGE, PLEASE? TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU VERY 
          [1.  Conduct a public hearing to receive testimony and evidence on a substandard property and structures located at 301 E. Wintergreen Rd., DeSoto, Texas, and discussion and consideration on the adoption of an order pursuant to the commission's authority under Article 3.800 of the City of DeSoto Code of Ordinances.]
MUCH. OKAY. NOW AT 6:03 P.M. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS EVENING. ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE, NUMBER ONE, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE ON A SUBSTANDARD PROPERTY AND STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 301 EAST WINTERGREEN ROAD, DESOTO, TEXAS. 
          AND DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION ON THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDER PURSUANT TO THE COMMISSION'S AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 3.800 OF THE CITY OF DESOTO CODE OF ORDINANCES. DO WE HAVE A REPORT FROM THE STAFF? THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU, CHAIR STAFF. SO, AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS EVENING'S PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE TO COVER THE CONDITIONS AT 301 EAST WINTERGREEN ROAD AND CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING. EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY. I DO NEED TO SWEAR YOU IN. ABSOLUTELY. LET'S SEE IF YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND STATE WHO YOU WILL BE TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS ANDREW LIPSCOMB. I'M THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY OF DESOTO. I'LL BE TESTIFYING ON THE CITY'S BEHALF. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WILL BE TESTIFYING HERE TONIGHT? NOT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THE OWNER IS NOT PRESENT. I DON'T SEE ANYONE, SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO TO SWEAR YOU IN, IF YOU'LL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY TO BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I BELIEVE THAT DOES IT. THANKS. THANK YOU. AS I MENTIONED, YOUR ROLE THIS EVENING WILL BE TO LISTEN TO TESTIMONY AND DETERMINE IF THE STRUCTURE VIOLATES THE BUILDING CODES AND DECIDE ANY CORRECTIVE ACTION. AS NOTED, THE PROPERTY ADDRESS IS LOCATED AT 301 EAST WINTERGREEN ROAD IN DESOTO, TEXAS, 75115. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS A 1.389 ACRE TRACT OF LAND OUT OF THE SUSAN BILLINGSLEY SURVEY. ABSTRACT NUMBER 134 IN THE CITY OF DESOTO, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN WARRANTY DEED WITH VENDOR'S LEAN TO GRETA TURNER BURTON AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 2001051. PAGE 6685 OF THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. 
          ACCORDING TO THOSE TAX RECORDS, PROPERTY OWNER IS GRETA TURNER BURTON, RESIDING AT 7334 PECAN RIDGE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS, 75237. SO I'VE CONDUCTED THREE SEPARATE INSPECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY. THE FIRST INSPECTION WAS DATED NOVEMBER 26TH, 2025. SECOND 1ST FEBRUARY 10TH, 2026 AND MOST RECENTLY, MAY 11TH, 2026. DURING ALL THREE OF THOSE INSPECTIONS, THE PROPERTY CONDITION NEVER CHANGED. IT HAS CONTINUED TO DETERIORATE. IT STILL IS IN A SUBSTANDARD STATE. 
          THE HOUSE, AS I MENTIONED, IS IN THE STATE OF SEVERE NEGLECT. THERE ARE LARGE HOLES IN THE ROOF IN MULTIPLE LOCATIONS. THE MAJORITY OF EXTERIOR SIDING IS DETERIORATED. WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE BOARDED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO WINDOWS THAT ARE BROKEN AND EXPOSED. THE INTERIOR TO THE ELEMENTS. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES COVER PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY. SO THIS SET OF PICTURES ARE OF THE EXTERIOR. THE LEFT PICTURE IS OF THE WEST WEST SIDE EXTERIOR, AND YOU'LL SEE ALL THE WINDOWS ARE BOARDED. AND YOU ALSO NOTE GRAFFITI ON THE WALL. THE CENTER PICTURE IS OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, YOU HAVE 
          [00:05:05]
WINDOWS AND DOORS BOARDED AND THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS OF THE REAR OR NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE BOARDED AND GRAFFITI IS PRESENT. THERE ARE TWO OUTBUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS THE SMALLER CARPORT STRUCTURE AND YOU'LL SEE IN THIS THE ACCUMULATION OF TRASH AND DEBRIS IS STILL PRESENT. IT'S BEEN THERE THE ENTIRE TIME. THE CENTER PICTURE IS OF THE LARGER CARPORT STRUCTURE. THIS IS THE INTERIOR OF THAT STRUCTURE. IN THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT DEPICTS THAT LARGER CARPORT STRUCTURE. SO IN ADDITION, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE THE HOUSE AND THE STRUCTURES TO BE DEMOLISHED AS WELL. THIS GIVES A LITTLE MORE DETAIL TO THE HOLES IN THE ROOF. PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS OF THE WEST SIDE. THE CENTER PICTURE IS OF THE EAST SIDE, AND THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS OF THE TWO WINDOWS THAT I REFERENCED THAT ARE UNPROTECTED. THEY'RE NOT BOARDED, ARE BROKEN, AND ALLOWING THE ELEMENTS TO INTRUDE INTO THE INTERIOR. WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO INSPECT THE INTERIOR. I'D PROBABLY BE A LITTLE DANGEROUS TO DO SO, BUT IT IS. IT HAS BEEN SECURED. I'LL COVER SOME OF THE CODE VIOLATION REFERENCES. PRIMARILY. CHAPTER THREE, DESOTO CITY CODE BUILDING REGULATIONS, ALONG WITH THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE. SO INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 111.1.1 UNSAFE STRUCTURES AND UNSAFE STRUCTURES DO POSE A DANGER TO LIFE, HEALTH, PROPERTY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY. SO THE NEXT TWO SLIDES ARE SUMMARY OF KEY CODE VIOLATIONS. AND WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS ACTUALLY READ THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF THE APPLICABLE CODE VIOLATIONS. SO TAKE A MINUTE BUT I'LL READ THEM. STARTING WITH THE FIRST ONE FROM THE EYE. ALL THESE ARE FROM THE IPMC. SO IPMC SECTION 111.1.3. A STRUCTURE IS UNFIT FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY. WHENEVER THE CODE OFFICIAL FINDS THAT SUCH STRUCTURE IS UNSAFE, UNLAWFUL, OR BECAUSE OF THE DEGREE TO WHICH THE. EXCUSE ME, THE STRUCTURE IS IN DISREPAIR OR LACKS MAINTENANCE IS INSANITARY. VERMIN OR RAT INFESTED, CONTAINS FILTH AND CONTAMINATION, OR LACKS VENTILATION, ILLUMINATION, SANITARY OR HEATING FACILITIES, OR OTHER ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT REQUIRED BY THIS CODE, OR BECAUSE THE LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A HAZARD TO THE OCCUPANTS OF THE STRUCTURE OR TO THE PUBLIC. INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTION 111.1.5, SUBSECTION TWO. THE WALKING SURFACE OF ANY AISLE, PASSAGEWAY, STAIRWAY, EXIT, OR OTHER MEANS OF EGRESS IS SO WARPED, WORN, LOOSE, TORN, OR OTHERWISE UNSAFE AS TO NOT PROVIDE SAFE AND ADEQUATE MEANS OF EGRESS. INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTION 111.1.5, SUBSECTION THREE. ANY PORTION OF A BUILDING STRUCTURE OR APPURTENANCE THAT HAS BEEN DAMAGED BY FIRE, EARTHQUAKE, WIND, FLOOD DETERIORATION, NEGLECT, ABANDONMENT, VANDALISM, OR BY ANY OTHER CAUSE. TO SUCH AN EXTENT, IT IS LIKELY TO PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY COLLAPSE, OR TO BECOME DETACHED OR DISLODGED. INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 111.1.5, SUBSECTION FOUR. ANY PORTION OF A BUILDING OR ANY MEMBER APPURTENANCE OR ORNAMENTATION ON THE EXTERIOR THEREOF THAT IS NOT OF SUFFICIENT STRENGTH OR STABILITY, OR IS NOT SO ANCHORED, ATTACHED OR FASTENED IN PLACE SO AS TO BE CAPABLE OF RESISTING NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL LOADS OF ONE AND ONE HALF. THE ORIGINAL DESIGN VALUE, INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTION 111.1.5, SUBSECTION FIVE. THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OR PART OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE BECAUSE OF DILAPIDATION, DETERIORATION, DECAY, FAULTY CONSTRUCTION, THE REMOVAL OR MOVEMENT OF SOME PORTION OF THE GROUND NECESSARY FOR THE SUPPORT OR FOR ANY REASON IS LIKELY TO PARTIALLY OR COMPLETELY COLLAPSE, OR SOME PORTION OF THE FOUNDATION OR UNDERPINNING OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IS LIKELY TO FAIL OR GIVE WAY. INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTION 111.1.5. SUBSECTION SIX. THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, OR ANY PORTION THEREOF IS CLEARLY UNSAFE FOR ITS USE AND OCCUPANCY. INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 111.1.5, SUBSECTION SEVEN. THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IS NEGLECTED, DAMAGED, DILAPIDATED, UNSECURED OR ABANDONED SO AS TO BECOME AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE TO CHILDREN WHO MIGHT PLAY IN THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE TO THEIR DANGER BECOMES A HARBOR FOR VAGRANTS, CRIMINALS OR IMMORAL PERSONS, OR ENABLES PERSONS TO RESORT TO THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE FOR COMMITTING A NUISANCE OR AN UNLAWFUL ACT. INTERNATIONAL 
          [00:10:03]
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, SECTION 111.1.5, SUBSECTION EIGHT. ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED, EXISTS OR IS MAINTAINED IN VIOLATION OF ANY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OR PROHIBITION APPLICABLE TO SUCH BUILDING OR STRUCTURE PROVIDED BY THE APPROVED BUILDING OR FIRE CODE OF THE JURISDICTION OR OF ANY LAW OR ORDINANCE, TO SUCH AN EXTENT AS TO PRESENT EITHER A SUBSTANTIAL RISK OF FIRE OR BUILDING COLLAPSE, OR ANY OTHER THREAT TO LIFE AND SAFETY. INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE SECTION 111.1.5, SUBSECTION 11. ANY PORTION OF A BUILDING REMAINS ON A SITE AFTER THE DEMOLITION OR DESTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, OR WHENEVER ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IS ABANDONED SO AS TO CONSTITUTE SUCH BUILDING OR PORTION THEREOF AS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE OR HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC. IF YOU'LL SKIP TO THAT ONE, THERE YOU GO. SO I'LL GO OVER A TIMELINE OF WHAT'S TRANSPIRED. I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. THE OUR ACTIONS ARE NOT BASED ON CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION THAT'S TAKING PLACE TO THIS POINT. 
          CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN WORKING THE PROPERTY SINCE 2009. SO THEY HAVE 25 CASES SINCE 2009 APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY. THERE'S BEEN 12 CASES ADDRESSING HIGH GRASS AND OTHER LANDSCAPING ISSUES, AND FIVE CASES CREATED FOR A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE AND BEING UNSECURED. 
          THE CITY HAS CURRENT UNPAID LIENS AGAINST THE PROPERTY FOR MAINTENANCE TOTALING $2,619. SO THE CITY HAS PRETTY MUCH BEEN TAKING CARE OF THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2009. SO IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR, MY PREDECESSOR INITIALLY RECEIVED A COMPLAINT AND INSPECTED THE PROPERTY. AT THAT TIME, HE WAS ABLE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE OWNER, WHO SAID THEY WERE GOING TO LIST THE PROPERTY FOR SALE. SO THEY LET THAT TIME FRAME PASS TO SEE IF THAT ACTION WAS GOING TO TAKE PLACE BETWEEN. UP UNTIL I CAME ON IN NOVEMBER. NOTHING TRANSPIRED, SO THE PROPERTY WAS NOT LISTED FOR SALE. THERE WAS NO ACTION BY THE OWNER. SO NOVEMBER 26TH I COMPLETED THE SUBSTANDARD INSPECTION. THERE WAS ALSO A CONCERN CONCERN SINCE THIS PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 1901, AND IT MAY BE PART OF A HISTORICAL REGISTRY. SO WE SPENT THAT TIME DURING DECEMBER AND JANUARY LOOKING INTO THAT, WORKED WITH THE HISTORICAL BOARD HERE IN THE CITY, CHECKED STATE REGISTRIES, COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING. SO WE PROCEEDED WITH OUR ACTION. FEBRUARY 3RD, I COMPLETED MY INITIAL SUBSTANDARD INSPECTION. WE MAILED A SUBSTANDARD LETTER TO THE OWNER ON MARCH 2ND. NO, WE DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE. ASSIGNED REGISTERED MAIL. 
          SIGNED. RETURN RECEIPT CARD MAY 1ST. WE MAILED OUT THE HEARING LETTER FOR THIS HEARING, AND I MADE ONE FINAL INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY ON MAY 11TH JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING HAD CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY AND IT HAD NOT. SO AT THIS TO THIS DATE, NO CORRECTION HAD BEEN TAKEN BY THE OWNER, AND THERE'S BEEN NO CONTACT WHATSOEVER. SO RISKS OF INACTION, BASICALLY, IT'S IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY RISK, YOU KNOW, ACCELERATED DETERIORATION DUE TO MULTIPLE HOLES IN THE ROOF, POTENTIAL COLLAPSE OF THE ROOF ITSELF BEING BOARDED UP. IT ATTRACTS VANDALISM, AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE GRAFFITI THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY. ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, VAGRANTS, ILLEGAL DUMPING WHICH YOU SAW IN THE PICTURES. IT HAS AN OVERALL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROPERTY VALUES. SO AS OF TODAY, AGAIN, THE STRUCTURE REMAINS IN A SEVERE STATE OF NEGLECT AND CONTINUES TO BE A DANGER AND ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE TO THE PUBLIC. SO BASED ON THAT TESTIMONY, WE RECOMMEND. THAT THE COMMISSION ISSUE AN ORDER TO REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING ACTION WITHIN 30 DAYS, OBTAIN PROPER CITY PERMITS, WHICH WOULD BE A DEMOLITION PERMIT. DEMOLISH ALL STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD INCLUDE DISCONNECTING ANY UTILITIES AND THEN ULTIMATELY, IF THEY TAKE NO ACTION, AUTHORIZE THE STAFF TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE IF NOT COMPLETED WITHIN 30 DAYS BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LIPSCOMB. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR MR. LIPSCOMB? YES, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. I JUST WANTED TO GET A FEW MORE DETAILS ON A FEW POINTS. I NOTICED IN THE TIMELINE, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU RECEIVED A COMPLAINT OR YOUR PREDECESSOR RECEIVED A COMPLAINT IN AUGUST OF 2025. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS SINCE THEN? NOT ANY FORMAL COMPLAINTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED. OKAY. AND THEN ALSO IN THE SUMMARY, AND YOU KIND OF ALREADY EXPLAINED A BIT OF THIS, BUT YOU MENTIONED THAT THE SITE HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE CITY SINCE 2009. CAN YOU GIVE US MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT 
          [00:15:03]
THAT USUALLY ENTAILS? SO IN SPEAKING TO HEATHER LATHAM, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR, SHE PROVIDED THE DETAILS ON WHAT ACTION THEY HAD TAKEN. BASICALLY, THEY'VE CONTINUED TO BOARD UP THE PROPERTY AND KEEP IT SECURED. THEY'VE MOWED THE GRASS EVERY YEAR, MULTIPLE TIMES A YEAR, AND TAKING CARE OF THE PROPERTY. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT BEEN MANICURED. 
          IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT IMPROVING THE PROPERTY IN ANY WAY. IT'S JUST KEEPING IT SECURED TO KEEP OUT VAGRANTS, CHILDREN SUCH LIKE THAT. AND YOU MENTIONED IN THE SUMMARY AS WELL, AND ON THE TIMELINE THAT A SUBSTANDARD LETTER WAS MAILED TO THE OWNER AND IT WAS THE FINAL NOTICE. IS THAT WAS THE WAS IT THE FIRST AND FINAL OR HAD THERE BEEN OTHER LIKE MORE FORMAL COMMUNICATIONS SENT TO THE OWNER? YEAH. SO WE HAD MAILED LET ME GO BACK AND GET THE DATE FOR YOU. SO ON MARCH 2ND, THAT'S WHEN I MAILED THE FORMAL SUBSTANDARD LETTER TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND THAT INCLUDED MY CHECKLIST, WHICH BASICALLY LISTS ALL THE VIOLATIONS I READ OFF TODAY AND EXPLAINED TO THEM THEY NEEDED TO CONTACT ME, TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, GET THE PROPER PERMITS, AND REPAIR THE PROPERTY. IF NOT, THEN WE WOULD AT SUCH TIME MOVE FORWARD WITH TAKING IT TO THE HEARINGS BOARD. OKAY. AND MY LAST QUESTION VERY QUICKLY, I DON'T MEAN TO. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU WERE REVIEWING FOR THE STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY, I NOTICED THAT YOU ALSO EXPLAINED THAT DURING YOUR INSPECTION, YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO GO INSIDE THE HOUSE. SO YOU'RE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT IT WAS STRUCTURALLY NOT SOUND WITH THE EXTERNAL INSPECTION, CORRECT? YES. YEAH. AND PRIMARILY WITH THE ROOF STRUCTURE, IF THAT COMES DOWN, IT'S A IT'S A KIND OF A DOMINO EFFECT. SO THE ROOF STRUCTURE IS THE MOST OBVIOUS DETERIORATING COMPONENT. YEAH. AND BECAUSE IT HAS LARGE HOLES IN THE ROOF, IT'S BEEN RAINING AND YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING'S BEEN GETTING INSIDE AND THEN IT JUST WEAKENS THOSE INTERIOR MEMBERS. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. ON THAT LAST NOTICE, DID YOU SAY THAT THE NOTICE WAS RETURNED AS NOT RECEIVED OR WE RECEIVED PROOF THAT IT WAS RECEIVED? SORRY. SURE. IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE OWNER AND SIGNED FOR. AND WE SHE SIGNED THE CONFIRMED SIGNED RECEIPT NOTE. PERFECT. YES. THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS ON BOTH BOTH DOCUMENTS THAT WE MAILED, THEY SIGNED FOR. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:19 P.M. YEAH, THERE'S NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER REMARKS FROM THE COMMISSION ON THIS MATTER? OKAY. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE AN ORDER PREPARED. I DON'T MIND READING IT. FINDINGS FROM THE COMMISSION. CAN YOU HELP US? BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS MANY TIMES. WHEN I REQUEST FINDINGS FROM THE COMMISSION, WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE ASKING FOR FROM THE COMMISSION? TO REQUIRE THE OWNER TO OBTAIN THE PROPER CITY PERMIT TO DEMOLISH ALL STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN 30 DAYS, AND AUTHORIZE THE STAFF TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURES, IF NOT COMPLETELY, BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, WITHIN 30 DAYS? THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO I SHOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OR THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED. OKAY SO MOVE. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FINDINGS FROM SORRY, BOARD MEMBER. OKAY. HAWKINS. THANK YOU. SO THE MOTION WILL BE MADE FOR THE FINDINGS AFTER IT'S READ. OKAY, SO THAT THE STRUCTURE HAS TO FIRST BE FOUND SUBSTANDARD. AND WE WOULD ALL HAVE TO VOTE THAT WE AGREE THAT IT'S SUBSTANDARD. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT WE'LL DO TONIGHT. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. WE SEE THIS HERE. SO THE FIRST THING WE WILL DO IS TAKE A VOTE. DO WE ALL AGREE ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN. SO ALL THE AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. PLEASE SAY I, I AND ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. ALL RIGHT. SO WE ALL AGREE AGREE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS STRUCTURE. AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE AGREES THAT IT'S 
          [00:20:06]
A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE. YES. THAT ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE. MAY I GET AN I FOR ALL THAT AGREE I AND ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. OKAY, SO WE ALL DO AGREE THAT THIS IS A SUBSTANDARD STRUCTURE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHTY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, THEN WE WOULD BE MOVING INTO THE ORDERS. YES. OKAY, GREAT. ORIGINAL MOTION. SO I JUST NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND AFTER I READ IT. RIGHT. OKAY, OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. SO THE ONLY OTHER THING IS. IN THIS ORDER, THERE IS A MENTION OF A. 
          ALL RIGHT. ONE THING THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS IN THE ORDER IS THAT THERE IS A PENALTY MENTIONED WITHIN THE ORDER, AND WE NEED TO SEE IF WE AGREE WITH THAT PENALTY AMOUNT OR IF WE WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE IT. SO LET ME. READ THAT ALOUD. IF YOU CAN JUST IF YOU WANT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY, DO WE WANT TO IMPOSE A PENALTY? SHOULD THE OWNER NOT RESPOND BY DEMOLISHING THE PROPERTY? YES, YES. IF THE CITY HAS TO TAKE ACTION TO KNOCK DOWN THE PROPERTY, THE PENALTY WOULD BE IMPOSED. DOES EVERYONE AGREE WITH THAT? YES. OKAY. SO WE WANT TO CLARIFY. SO THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITY RECOVERING COST FOR COMPLETING THE DEMOLITION, DEMOLITION AND THIS LANGUAGE OF THE OWNER BEING PENALIZED $1,000 PER DAY FOR NOT COMPLYING WITHIN THE 30 DAYS. OKAY, LET ME READ THIS OUT LOUD JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S ON THE SAME PAGE. WE HAVE RECEIVED GUIDANCE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECOVERING THE COST FOR KNOCKING DOWN THE PROPERTY AND ACTUALLY ASSESSING A PENALTY. 
          SO THE LANGUAGE IS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER SAYS THAT IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT SHOULD THE OWNER, SUBSEQUENT OWNER OR ANY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THE ORDER AND WE'LL READ THE FULL ORDER MOMENTARILY THAT THE CITY MAY SEEK ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,000 PER DAY. SO IF ANYTHING WITHIN THE ORDER THAT WE WILL READ IN FULL HERE SHORTLY IS VIOLATED, WE WOULD BE ALSO SAYING THAT WE WILL ASSESS $1,000 PER DAY PENALTY. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? JUST TO CLARIFY, WOULD THAT BE IN ADDITION TO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WOULD BE. IN ADDITION TO THE CITY RECOVERING COSTS FOR DEMOLISHING THE PROPERTY? THAT IS CORRECT. $1,000 PER DAY, NOT TO EXCEED $1,000 PER DAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT? ARE WE ALL IN AGREEMENT? I'LL TAKE A VOTE. BUT. I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES? CAN WE ADJUST THE AMOUNT OR WE CAN WE WAIVE THAT ALTOGETHER? YES, WE COULD DO EITHER. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION? I DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THE CONCERN IS. THE LIKELIHOOD THAT IT WOULD BE RECOVERED. BUT I GUESS SINCE THE ORDER DOES COVER SUBSEQUENT OWNERS OR ASSIGNEES. SO WE IF IT WAS IF THE PROPERTY IS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD WITH THE CITY, THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECOVER THOSE COSTS. AND THE ORDER DOES COVER THAT. OKAY. WELL, I'M SORRY, I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT BASED ON YOUR ORDER, OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD WOULD NOT BE TO INCLUDE THE PENALTY. YOU CAN INCLUDE IT AND YOU CAN GO UP TO $1,000. THAT AMOUNT WOULD JUST BE ASSESSED AS A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY. SO FOR WHATEVER THE NUMBER OF DAYS IS THAT IT TAKES FOR US TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THEY'LL HAVE 30 DAYS THEN IF THEY DON'T. SO THAT WOULD BE 30 DAYS THAT THE PENALTY WOULD BE ASSESSED, AND THEN ANY ADDITIONAL DAYS UNTIL WE DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING IS CLEANED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION. YES, MA'AM. SO. ONCE THE PROPERTY IS DEMOLISHED, IS THE CITY THE 
          [00:25:04]
OWNER OF THE PROPERTY OR THE THE OWNERSHIP IS RETAINED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNER, WHICH. YES, THE OWNER WOULD RETAIN THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND WE WOULD PLACE A LIEN. THE CITY WOULD PLACE A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY AND FILE THAT WITH THE COUNTY. WHEN THE PROPERTY IS ULTIMATELY SOLD, WE WOULD RECOVER THAT LIEN MONEY. I SEE, THANK YOU. CAN YOU CLARIFY IN THE ORDER, SHOULD THE CITY HAVE TO KNOCK DOWN THE PROPERTY AT THAT 30TH DAY, HOW LONG DOES DO WE HAVE TO RECOVER OR HOW LONG DO WE PERMIT TO RECOVER THOSE FUNDS FROM THE OWNER? ONCE THE LIEN IS FILED WITH THE COUNTY, IT JUST REMAINS ATTACHED TO THE PROPERTY UNTIL IT'S SOLD. SO THAT COULD BE YEARS. BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE NORMAL PROCESS. SO WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING THIS $1,000 NOT TO EXCEED $1,000 PER DAY ADDITIONAL PENALTY. IF WE AGREE THAT IT SHOULD REMAIN IN THE ORDER. ARE THERE ANY. SUGGESTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS. ARE THERE PROVISIONS TO DEMAND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO RECOVER THE LIEN AMOUNT? IN THE EVENT THAT THE OWNER IS NEGLIGENT AND RECOUPING THOSE COSTS TO THE CITY? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. 
          SO THE WAY THAT PROCESS WORKS IS AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE FOR UNPAID TAXES ON A PROPERTY. SO GENERALLY THE LARGEST TAXING ENTITY, WHICH IS USUALLY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THE COUNTY, HAS TO FORECLOSE ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEN THAT WOULD FORCE THE SALE. SO IT COULD SIT FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE EVEN THAT ACTION IS TAKEN. BUT AGAIN, AS LONG AS THEY'RE PAYING THE TAXES, IT'S IT'S GENERALLY NOT GOING TO GET FORECLOSED ON. YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING THE FEES. IS THERE A REASON WHY? I DON'T THINK OTHER THAN THE OWNER BEING UNRESPONSIVE? THERE'S NO AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES TO, YOU KNOW, JUST THE MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE. BUT IF YOU DECIDE THAT YOU KNOW, IT APPLIES, THEN YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THAT OPTION TO APPLY THAT PENALTY. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO REMOVE THE $1,000 PER DAY PENALTY. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE. ANY RESPONSE REALLY FROM THE OWNER SO FAR? WE ARE GIVING 30 DAYS AND WE KNOW WE WILL ACCOMPLISH THE RECOMMENDATION OF KNOCKING DOWN THE PROPERTY AND RECOVERING THE AMOUNT FROM THE OWNER. I THINK THAT IS SUFFICIENT IN THIS CASE. JUST MY THOUGHTS THOUGH. HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR RECOMMENDATION. MY CONCERN IS THAT INSOMUCH AS THE OWNER HAS BEEN NEGLIGENT, NON-RESPONSIVE, EVEN IF THE PROPERTY THE STRUCTURES ARE DEMOLISHED, THE CITY COULD STILL STAND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MOWING OF THE LOT FOR INTO PERPETUITY. AND SO IF THERE SEEMINGLY IF THERE IS NO PENALTY, THEN THE OWNER WOULD JUST CONTINUE TO BE NON-RESPONSIVE AND UNCARING, SEEMINGLY POSSIBLY. I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ASK SINCE IT WASN'T PRESENTED. I'M ASSUMING THAT THE PROPERTY TAXES ARE CURRENT. IS THAT CORRECT OR DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THANK YOU. THE OWNER HAS BEEN NON-RESPONSIVE SINCE 2009. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, YES. THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR INDICATED THAT THEY THEY ROUTINELY SEND THEIR NOTICES TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE UNRESPONSIVE. AND SO AS I MENTIONED, I THINK IT'S ALMOST $3,000 WORTH OF LIENS FOR MOWING AND CLEANING AND SECURING THE PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. SO TO YOUR POINT, THAT WOULD CONTINUE TO HAPPEN. YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD THEY WOULD MOW THE PROPERTY AND FILE A LIEN FOR THE MOWING. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, ONCE WE PLACE THE LIEN ON THE PROPERTY, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE PROPERTY UNTIL THE AMOUNT THAT WE SPEND IS RECOVERED. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. HIS FIRST RESPONSE WAS OKAY, BUT AT THIS, SINCE WE HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING, 
          [00:30:07]
WE CAN'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN REFERENCE TO THE PROPERTY OR THE RECOMMENDATION ANYMORE. WE DO NEED TO STAY FOCUSED ON THIS $1,000. SO. I DO HEAR THAT WE ARE AFRAID WE MIGHT NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE IF WE REMOVE THAT $1,000 PENALTY, AND I CAN ALIGN WITH THAT. ARE THERE IS THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHT ON THAT? I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION THAT THAT'S A THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT. I THINK THAT MAYBE WE CAN ADJUST THE PENALTY AMOUNT IF POSSIBLE. 
          BUT YEAH, THE CITY DOES DESERVE TO BE TO RECOUP THE, THE COST. AND THERE SHOULD BE AN INCENTIVE FOR THE OWNER TO, TO RESPOND. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ADJUSTED AMOUNT? IT SAYS NOT TO EXCEED $1,000 PER DAY. SO THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY. 250, MAYBE MINIMUM, MAYBE 500 A DAY. BECAUSE AGAIN, IT WILL BE ASSESSED FROM THE MOMENT OF OUR ORDER, BUT IT WILL BE BEYOND 30 DAYS. SO EVEN IF THE OWNER RESPONDS. SO IF THE OWNER RESPONDS, LET'S SAY WITHIN 15 DAYS, THEN THAT WOULD STOP ACCUMULATING THEN, OKAY. SO I WOULD SAY MAYBE A FLOOR OR A MINIMUM OF 250 OR 500. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I WOULD SAY 500 JUST BECAUSE THE OWNER HAS BEEN NON-RESPONSIVE SINCE 2009, I DON'T THINK NOT ASSESSING PENALTIES WILL GET THEM TO DO ANY BETTER. SO, OKAY, ARE WE SAYING A MINIMUM OF $500 PER DAY OR A MAXIMUM OF $500 PER DAY? MAXIMUM? I CAN AGREE WITH THAT. SO ARE WE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL CHARGE A PENALTY, AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500 PER DAY? YES, I AGREE, OKAY. DO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT OR IS THAT SUFFICIENT? YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE ON. SO WE HAVE FOUND A FINDING THAT WE ARE GOING TO ADJUST THE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY IN ORDER TO BE IN AN AMOUNT, NOT TO EXCEED $500 PER DAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          SO I THINK WITH THAT. I'M GOING TO MOVE INTO READING THE FINDINGS IN THE ORDER FOR THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. AND. WE DIDN'T HAVE A CASE NUMBER FOR TONIGHT. IS THERE A CASE NUMBER ON THIS ONE. NO, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL PROCEED WITH READING THE ORDER. 
          THIS IS A FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DESOTO. IN ORDER OF THE CITY OF DESOTO BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION. WITH REGARD TO THE ABATEMENT OF THE SUBSTANDARD AND DANGEROUS STRUCTURE. LOCATE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 301 EAST WINTERGREEN ROAD, DESOTO, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. WHEREAS, THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS, THE COMMISSION, AT A PROPERLY NOTICE MEETING, CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 21ST, 2026, PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 3.800 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS, AND CHAPTERS 54 AND 214 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHEREIN THE STRUCTURES LOCATED AT 301 EAST WINTERGREEN ROAD, DESOTO, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. THE PROPERTY WAS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING A 1.389 ACRE TRACT OF LAND OUT OF THE SUSAN BILLINGSLEY SURVEY. ABSTRACT NUMBER 134 IN THE CITY OF DESOTO, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN WARRANTY DEED WITH VENDOR'S LEAN TO GRETA TURNER, TURNER, BURTON AS RECORDED IN VOLUME 2001051. PAGE 6685 REAL PROPERTY RECORDS. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS. NOW. THEREFORE, THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS, PURSUANT TO ITS AUTHORITY UNDER CHAPTERS 54 AND 214 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND ARTICLE 3.800 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DESOTO, TEXAS, ENTERS THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER ONE FINDINGS OF FACT THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT NOTICE OF ONE NOTICE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER HAVE BEEN GIVEN, MAILED, PUBLISHED, AND POSTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND TWO. THE CITY OF DESOTO CITY BROUGHT A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE 
          [00:35:01]
PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE BUILDING STRUCTURES AND PREMISES. WHEREAS THE PROPERTY EXISTS IN SUBSTANDARD AND DANGEROUS CONDITION AND IS AN URBAN NUISANCE, POSING DANGER TO LIFE, HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY. IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY OF DESOTO CODE OF ORDINANCES CODE AND THE INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE, AS ADOPTED BY THE CODE I, P, M, C AND THREE. THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS GRETA TURNER BURTON. THE OWNER WITH THE ADDRESS ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS. GRETA TURNER BURTON, 301 EAST WINTERGREEN ROAD, DESOTO, TEXAS, 75115. AND GRETA TURNER BURTON, 7334 PECAN RIDGE DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS, SEVEN FIVE, TWO, THREE, SEVEN AND FOUR. UNCORRECTED CODE VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY CONTINUE TO EXIST TO DATE, AND FIVE AFTER HEARING THE EVIDENCE. 
          THE VIOLATIONS CURRENTLY LISTED ON THE CODE VIOLATION INVENTORY ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED HEREIN AS EXHIBIT A ARE FOUND TO EXIST ON THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY AND BUILDING STRUCTURE AND PREMISES THEREON CONSTITUTE A SAFETY HAZARD ON THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE AND THE I, P M, C AND SIX. THE COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE PROPERTY AND THE BUILDING STRUCTURE AND PREMISES THEREON THEREON REMAIN IN A SUBSTANDARD CONDITION AND CONSTITUTES AN URBAN NUISANCE AS OF THE DATE OF THIS HEARING, AND FINDS THAT THE VIOLATIONS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AND REQUESTED FOR CORRECTION AS DESCRIBED IN THE CODE VIOLATION INVENTORY, HAVE NOT BEEN PERFORMED AND COMPLETED AND REMAIN OUTSTANDING. AND SEVEN THE COMMISSION FINDS PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY, BUILDING STRUCTURE AND PREMISES LOCATED THEREON CONSTITUTE A LIFE SAFETY HAZARD AND A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. THE COMMISSION CONCLUDES THAT ONE NOTICE WAS DULY AND PROPERLY GIVEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, THEREBY CONFERRING COMMISSION JURISDICTION OVER THESE PROCEEDINGS. AND TWO, THE PROPERTY IS SUBSTANDARD. 
          PURSUANT TO CHAPTER THREE, BUILDING REGULATIONS OF THE CODE AND THE IPMC DUE TO THE VIOLATION CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE VIOLATION INVENTORY AND THREE THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION IS UNFIT FOR HUMAN USE AND HABITATION AND A HAZARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE, AND THE PROPERTY ALSO CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC NUISANCE VIOLATION DUE TO THE VIOLATION CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE VIOLATION INVENTORY AND FOUR PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 54 AND 214 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER THREE, BUILDING REGULATIONS OF THE CODE, THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE PROPERTY BUILDING STRUCTURE AND PREMISES LOCATED THEREON TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE AND FIVE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 54 AND 214 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER THREE OF THE CODE, THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER THE PROPERTY BUILDING STRUCTURE AND PREMISES LOCATED THEREON BE DEMOLISHED, AND SIX PURSUANT TO CHAPTERS 54 AND 214 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER THREE, BUILDING REGULATIONS OF THE CODE, THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND ENFORCE BUILDING CODE VIOLATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONDITION, USE, OR APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CITY AND SEVEN PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 54 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AS CODIFIED IN CHAPTER THREE, BUILDING REGULATIONS OF THE CODE, THE COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER OR DIRECT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ENFORCE AND CARRY OUT THE LAWFUL ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION. THREE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSION. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PROPERTY BOUGHT BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, FOR THE CITY IS, IN ALL THINGS SUSTAINED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE OWNER, SUBSEQUENT OWNER AND ANY OTHER SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY BRING THE PROPERTY, THE BUILDING STRUCTURE AND PREMISES THEREON INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE I, P, M, C AND OTHER CODES LISTED IN THE CODE VIOLATION INVENTORY ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A BY DEMOLISHING ALL STRUCTURES LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY AND REMOVAL OF ALL DEBRIS AND PERSONAL PROPERTY FROM A STRUCTURE ORDERED OR DEMOLISHED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS ORDER, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE OWNER, SUBSEQUENT OWNER OR ANY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY BRING THE PROPERTY, THE BUILDING STRUCTURE AND PREMISES THEREON. IMMEDIATELY SECURE THE PROPERTY, THE BUILDING, THE STRUCTURE AND THE PREMISES THEREON TO PREVENT UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS AND IF OWNER, SUBSEQUENT OWNER OR ANY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY FAILS TO COMPLY. WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THIS ORDER, THE CITY MAY SECURE THE PROPERTY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE OWNER, SUBSEQUENT OWNER AND ANY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY BRING THE PROPERTY, THE BUILDING STRUCTURE AND PREMISES THEREON IMMEDIATELY. ENSURE ALL UTILITIES TO THE PROPERTY ARE DISCONNECTED IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OF THE CITY OR THEIR DESIGNEE AND THAT IN SUCH CASE, OWNER, SUBSEQUENT OWNER OR ANY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY FAILS TO COMPLY WITHIN THREE DAYS OF THE ORDER, THE CITY MAY ENSURE ALL UTILITIES TO THE PROPERTY OR ARE DISCONNECTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT IN THE EVENT THE OWNER, SUBSEQUENT OWNER OR ANY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER IN THE ALLOTTED TIME, THEN THE OWNER, LIENHOLDER OR OTHER INTERESTED PARTY SHALL HAVE THE SAME 
          [00:40:04]
OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER, AND FAILING THAT, THE CITY SHALL BE EMPOWERED TO ABATE THE VIOLATIONS LISTED IN THE CODE VIOLATION INVENTORY AND OR BY DEMOLISHING THE STRUCTURE AT ANY TIME THEREAFTER WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, AND ALL COSTS INCURRED SHALL BE CHARGED TO THE PROPERTY CHARGED AGAINST THE PROPERTY AS A LIEN. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT SHOULD THE OWNER, SUBSEQUENT OWNER OR ANY SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER, THAT THE CITY MAY SEEK ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500 PER DAY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS ORDER SHALL BE THE FINAL DECISION OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE APPELLATE DEADLINE PROVIDED IN SECTION FIVE, 54.03954.039 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. NO CITY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE IS AUTHORIZED TO CHANGE ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDER. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE PROMPTLY MAILED BY CERTIFIED MAIL. RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED TO ALL PERSONS, AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND BY FIRST CLASS MAIL. SHOULD THE CITY DEEM IT EFFECTIVE AT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL NOTICE. IN ADDITION, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE ONE PUBLISHED. I PUBLISHED ONE ONE TIME IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OF THE CITY WITHIN TEN CALENDAR DAYS AFTER THE MAILING OF THE COPY OF THE ORDER, AND TWO FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY SECRETARY. 
          THIS IS ORDERED THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026. AND THAT IS THE READING OF THE ORDER. AND I DO NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS. AS I HAVE JUST READ AND. DO NEED TO RECEIVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. THANK YOU. I MOVE THE APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS AS READ. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. EXCUSE ME? SECOND. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS AS READ. AND I WILL NOW TAKE THIS TO A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THANK YOU THAT THE FINDINGS HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND ACCEPTED. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR PATIENCE. DO I SIGN THIS VERSION THAT HAS THE THE SLIGHT CORRECTION. OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT IS THE ONLY ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR TONIGHT. SO WITH THAT, I CAN MAKE A CALL FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN OUR MEETING. MAY I HAVE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU. ALL IN AGREEMENT. SAY I, I AND ALL OPPOSED. SAY NAY. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I WILL CLOSE THIS MEETING. ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.