Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN JUN 21 1988 REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL - CITY OF BEAUMONT HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 - 1 : 15 P.M. BE IT REMEMBERED that the City Council of the city of Beaumont, Texas , met in regular session this the 21st day of June, 1988 , with the following present : HONORABLE : Maurice Meyers Mayor Bob Lee , Jr. Councilman At Large Andrew P. Cokinos Councilman At Large Lulu L. Smith Councilman, Ward I Mike Brumley Councilman, Ward II Audwin Samuel Mayor Pro Tem and Councilman, Ward III David W. Moore Councilman, Ward IV Albert E . Haines City Manager Lane Nichols City Attorney Rosemarie Ch-Jappetta City Clerk -000- The Invocation was given by Brother Bonnie Dowden, Tyrrell Park Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Brumley. -000- Mayor Meyers called an Executive Session, pursuant to Section IIe of the Texas Open Meetings Act, to discuss pending or contemplative litigation, to be held immediately following the city Council Workshop Session . -000- MAYOR MEYERS in passing a memorandum to the City Manager: Attached is a copy of a preparedness test from May 12th of 1987 and the guidelines that we used at that time . I would reread, "If we were to suggest that we had just been advised of an emergency requiring accountability of all funds, we would like to know that the information is immediately available. " And, for the sake of this test, let us assume that such has occurred and we would ask that you provide us with the location and amounts that currently available in all accounts and if documentation is required to support the accounts, this should also be provided and we would like this information prior to completion of today' s workshop. Thank you. -000- -151- June 21 , 1388 Public comment was called on Agenda Items A through D. No one wished to address City Council on this items . -000- The following Consent Agenda items were considered: Approval of the Minutes of the regular City Council session held June 7 , 1988; Resolution 88-126 authorizing the pledge of $100 , 0-00 in securities and the release of $500, 000 in securities held as collateral for city deposits by M Bank; Resolution 88-127 appointing Alex Ogunmuyiwa and Richard Chappell to the Senior Citizens Advisory Commission, terms to September 30 , 1990; Irene Sheehan and 011ie Kent to the Martin Luther King, Jr. , Parkway, terms to January 1 , 1990; Hester Bell to the Housing Rehabilitation Loan Board, term to May 31 , 1990 and Ed Sigee, Raymond Chaison, The Reverend Amos Landry, Rette Browning, Olivia Gonzales and David Haysley to the Community Development Block Grant Citizens Advisory Commission, terms to May 31 , 1990; Resolution 88-128 authorizing a License to Encroach agreement with the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word for a communications cable crossing Calder Avenue between Thirteenth and Fourteenth Streets at a one-time license fee of $:500 . 00; Resolution 88-129 approving the sale of a 50 by 140 foot vacant lot at 975 Forsythe Street ' and- described as Lot 8, Block 11 , Van Wormer Addition, acquired through foreclosure for delinquent taxes , to Alice Pat-illo at an amount of $1 , 500 . 00; and Resolution 88-130 increasing the social services facilities rehabilitation grants approved for The Red Cross by $6 ,600 to $24 , 600 and Family services Association by $6 , 000 to $11 , 000 under the Community Development Block Grant Program. The consent Agenda was approved on a motion made by Councilman Moore and seconded by Councilman Brumley. Question: Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- A public hearing was called to consider an application filed by Ronald B . Conner, 1280 Highway 96 , Silsbee, operator of City Cab, Silsbee, for a permit to operate a taxicab within the Beaumont city limits . Mr . Ronald B . Conner, City Cab, Silsbee, addressed Council to request the permit to allow him to transport senior citizens of Silsbee to and from doctors and hospitals in Beaumont, as well as participants of the START Program of Hardin County, etc . , and stated that this would meet the need and necessity requirements of the City of Beaumont Code . -162- June 21 , 1988 There being no one else to address City Council , the public hearing was closed. Resolution 88-131 approving the permit to allow Ronald B . Conner a permit to operate a taxicab service within the city limits of Beaumont was approved on a motion made by Councilman Moore and seconded by Councilman Lee . Question: Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Resolution 88-132 accepting the work performed by Cutler Repaving, Inc . under a contract for the recycling and repaving element of the 1988 Street Rehabilitation Program (project completed for a total of $195 , 142 . 64 including Change order No. 2 , a reduction of $7 , 157 . 36 adjusting actual quantities used - original contract amount $216 ,400 less Change order No. 1 at $14 , 000) and authorizing final payment to the Contractor in the amount of $9 , 757 . 13 was approved or, a motion made by Councilman Lee and seconded by Councilman Moore . Question: Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Resolution 88-133 authorizing a contract with Perkins Roofing Company, Inc . for roof repairs for the Police Building at an amount of $98 , 350 . 0✓ was approved on a motion made by Councilman Brumley and seconded by Councilman Samuel . Question: Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- Resolution 88-134 authorizing a one-year contract with J. R. Parsley Company, Inc . for custodial services for the Health Department at an amount of $25 , 336 . 10 (daily maintenance at $1 , 754 . 00 per month or $21 , 048 . 00 annually, carpet shampooing at $0 . 075 per square foot, floor stripping and waxing at $0. 09 per square foot and window cleaning - inside only, at $440) was approved on a motion made by Councilman Moore and seconded by Councilman Smith. Question: Ayes : All Nayes : None -000- A public hearing was called to consider five ( 5 ) below-listed structures found to be in violation of the City of Beaumont ' s Dangerous Structures ordinance, Article III, Section 14-50 : 800 PEARL - Ric Warchol , owner ( 13 violations ) , recommendation to raze or repair within 30 days; 1122 HAZEL - Juliana Herbst et al , owner ( 16 violations ) , to raze or repair within 30 days; 3125 MAGNOLIA - LeRoy Thibodeaux, owner ( 12 violations) , to raze or repair within 30 days; 2470 CONCORD - Carl D. Levy/Kenn Furlow, owners c/o Kenneth Furlow ( 17 violations ) , to raze or repair within 30 days and 4015 WILLIE MAE - Joe Denley, owner ( 18 violations) , raze within 30 days . -163- June 21 , 1988 The six ( 6 ) structures listed below have been condemned by City Council and the owners ordered to either raze or repair them within specified time frames . Reinspection of these structures have revealed non-compliance with the Council ' s order. The community Development Department, Code Enforcement Housing Division, is requesting authorization from the City Council to demolish these structures in accordance with the Dangerous Structures Ordinance and charge the property owners with the cost of demolition : 1095 Isla, , 4*365 Steelton , 1177 Avenue A, 1015 Avenue D, 2015 Joachimi and 2715 Glenwood. Mr. Ric Warchol , 1155 Interstate 10 South, owner of the structure located at 800 Pearl , formerly the LaSalle Hotel (later renamed King Edward Hotel and named Water-ford Hotel by Mr. Warchol) addressed Council to complain of poor communications with the City about the building. He told Council there was no electricity or plumbing to the building and that boarding of the structure had proved ineffective . Mr. Warchol offered no answer to Mayor Meyers ' questions about abatement of the "ugly, unsightly and unsafe" conditions of the structure . Mr. Ben Rogers , 2030 Thomas Road, addressed Council to urge that no action be taken on the structure located at 800 Pearl assuring Council that he would make certain that the building would be secured and that the area would be cleaned. Mr. Marvin Benoit, 9395 Mapes , addressed Council to urge open communications between the City and Mr. Warchol . There being no one else to address Council , the public hearing was closed. Ordinance No. 88-57 declaring certain dilapidated structures to be public nuisances and ordering their repair or removal and authorizing the Community Development Department to cause to be removed certain other dilapidated structures whose owners failed to comply with previously issued condemnation orders was considered: ORDINANCE NO. 88-57 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE FINDING CERTAIN STRUCTURES TO BE PUBLIC NUISANCES AND ORDERING THEIR REPAIR OR DEMOLITION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY. It was agreed that action for the structure located at 800 Pearl would be considered separately. councilman Samuel made a motion to approve the ordinance and staff recommendations for the other four- (4) structures; motion was seconded by Councilman Moore. Question: Ayes : All Nayes : None -164- June 21 , 1988 After a discussion, a motion to accept the recommendation to raze or repair the structure located at 800 Pearl was made by Councilman Lee and seconded by Councilman Brumley. After further discussion by all parties, the motion and second were withdrawn. It was decided that no action would be taken concerning the structure located at 800 Pearl to allow Mr. Rogers opportunity to secure the property and clean the debris but Staff was instructed to report to Council the status of the structure in thirty ( 330 ) days . -000- Mayo.- Meyers reported that the financial information sought earlier by the preparedness test had been received and complimented the process . -000- Councilman Brumley reminded all that the next Concerts on the Move program would be held Thursday, June 23 , 1988 , at 7 : 00 p.m. in Rogers Park; entertainment to be furnished by Jimmy Simmons Jazz Band, Travelers and a surprise guest. In addition, Councilman Brumley reported the poor condition of the railroad crossing near the entrance to downtown at the Delia Harrington Welcome to Beaumont Park. Councilman Lee invited all to attend the Sunday in the Park activities to be hosted by Fashion Showcase, Sunday, June 26 , 1988 , 2 : 00 to 4 : 00 p.m. Councilman Lee also suggested that some method for funding the removal of building materials , etc . , not now handled by the Sanitation Department, be sought through the budget process for the elimination of this unsightly debris . In addition, Councilman Lee requested that the discussion of a proposed handbill ordinance be pulled from the Workshop agenda for one week, saying Mrs . Maree Calcote, Chairman of the Clean Community Commission, is out of the country and would like to be present for this discussion. Councilman Moore reported public nuisance conditions with a dilapidated structure and high grass and weeds at 4000 Congress . In addition, Councilman Moore again mentioned encouraging citizens to use the 'Landfill by eliminating the fee charged after the specified number of free visits per month. Councilman Smith complimented City staff for the renovation of the Tyrrell Park Stables . Mayor Meyers reported a burned structure in the 2400 or 2500 block of Neches Street. -165- June 21 , 1988 In addition , Mayor Meyers spoke of a request received from Amoco Production Co. , requesting a 4-way traffic signal to replace the 3-way signal that is located at Dowlen and Delaware to allow safer exit from their property. Councilman Lee mentioned a request he had received from BUILD concerning the waiving of parking fees , both on-street and off-street, during a downtown promotional activity. It was stated that the issue of parking fees will be discussed in a future Workshop Session. -000- Mr . Bob Gracey, 570 Weatherford, addressed Council concerning the Telecommunications , Inc . (TCI) Cablevision' s decision to cut a channel , 20-vision, from it ' s viewing schedule . Mr. Gracey told Council TCT planned to drop this channel because of its cost rather than pass a "substantial" rate increase to subscribers . Mr. Gracey said that this increase was reported to be $1 . 00 . He told Council that he was circulating a petition of signatures of cable subscribers to be presented to TCI urging that this channel not be dropped because of its telecasting of Astros and Rockets sports events as well as quality programming for children and good old movies . Mr . Wayne Sherman, 3215 Bradford, addressed Council , first to compliment the "action letters" provided to those in attendance and giving a summary of action to be considered by Council , and second to urge that no implementation of any area of the comprehensive management study for the Beaumont Police Department be made until a complete review of the program can be made. , Mr. Henry Dannenbaum, 1567 Wall , addressed Council to speak on many matters . -000- There being no further business , the meeting was recessed before continuing with the City Council Workshop session. -000- I , Rosemarie Chiappetta, City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, Texas, certify that the above is a true copy of the Minutes of the regular City Council session held June 21 , 1988 . Rosemarie Chiappe-'Cta City Clerk _166- June 21 , 1988 EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Requested by Councilman Cokinos MR. WAYNE SHERMAN: Good afternoon, Mayor and members of Council . My name is Wayne Sherman . I live at 325 Bradford Drive . First, I ' d like to commend Council for providing these Action Letters . These are really nice . They sure help us , you know, follow the Council meeting. we appreciate it . Mayor and members of Council . I am here this evening to comment on the curl-ent, comprehensive management study of the Beaumont Police Department now under consideration. It' s my understanding that action has already been taken by the Resource management Director' s Office to begin implementation of some parts of this program . I am referring to the hiring freeze that ' s been ordered for the Beaumont Police Department in order to begin the civilian dispatcher' s program and I understand the first steps have already been taken to implement the take home car program . I recognize the fact the City Manager has the authority to take these steps but I am urging that we take extreme caution on this issue . I believe many parts of the program has merit but before putting any of it into motion, I think the citizens have the right to look at it . 1 think the Police Chief has the right to look at it. The Department should study it and by all means City Council take a great deal of time to study this program . Lei- Is not shoot from the hip on' this one . Rather than try to rush this program through as I ' ve seen other issues appeared to be rushed through Council , let ' s take the time to really study it and implement the bett6r parts of it in a spirit of cooperation with the Police Department and let ' s antagonize the 'Least number of city employees and citizens that we can get away with. What I am here today for and respectfully asking the Council , ask the City Manager, to implement no part of this program until the entire program has time to be studied. Thank you, CITY MAN AGEP : Could I set the record straight on that? I think it ' s important, Mr. Sherman, that I got back into town last night. I have had no discussion with the Chief of Police. I 've had no discussion with any City employee relative to that study. As you know and I am sure the Council is aware , our chief if spending some time in the hospital recuperating and I talked to him over the phone this morning. He' s going to be discharged tomorrow, by the way. our position has not changed from what I represented to Council when it was presented to Council and that position is that we have received a study. We are going to ask that the Chief, management staff of the Police Department, as well as myself, review that study and if there are any components of that study that are deserving of implementation, they will be made a consideration of the budget process and not before . You are referring to a couple of letters I think that Mr . Patterson sent to the Chief relative to questions regarding the civilization of the dispatch area. I can assure you that we have made no efforts and no decisions relative to any element of that study. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELIE-) JUNE 21 , 1968 Page .2 MR. SHERMAN: Okay, the . . . the hiring freeze has been . . . is effective, is it not' CITY MANAGER: That hiring freeze was implemented in October 1 , 1987 . MR . SHERMAN: Okay, well , the letter I believe was dated June 15 , 1988 . CITY MANAGER: No, there has been a vacancy factor in the Police Department that has been in place since the fiscal year started. MR. SHERMAN: I understand that. The Plan heretofore was to fill it with twelve of the officers but that now has been changed to fill it with civilian personnel . CITY MANAGER: No. my decision is that we are not filling any positions . The Chief is fully aware of our decision that we are not filling any positions in the Police Department until such time as we have had opportunity to review the study. MR. SHERMAN: I find no fault with what you are doing, Mr. City Manager. As a matter of fact, I happened to agree with a lot of this program, as I said. The civilian dispatchers are something that I do agree with but I 'm awfully concerned that if this is tried to rush . . . If we try to rush through this in any way, it ' s going to create a lot of hostility among some of the citizens . I think we need to give everybody a chance to put their input into it and then move forward on parts of the program. But, I think it is something that should really be taken a step at a time . CITY MANAGER: That ' s happening. I can assure you of that and I have a lot of confidence in the ability of our Chief and his staff to be able to digest that study and to respond appropriately. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD D JUNE 21 , 1988 L Page 3 MR . SHERM.AN: Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : By whose authority, Mr. City Manager, that Mr. Patterson wrote that memo to the chief of Police when he ' s flat on his back in the hospital with a by-pass? By whose authority does he have that . . . ? CITY MANAGER: Mr. Patterson was instructed by myself to begin discussion with the Chief relative to the civilization issue . And, . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : That' s wasn' t my question . . . . . . CITY MANAGER: . . . May I finish, sir? COUNCILMAN COKINOS : No , but that wasn' t my question. CITY MANAGER: You asked me a quest-ion . I want to answer it . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Yes , but that wasn' t my question. My question by whose authority does he have to send out a memo such as what he did on June the 15th? CITY MANAGER: He has my authority, sir. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Your authority? CITY MANAGER: Yes , sir. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : As Resource Manager Director? To be sending out a memo to the Police Department like that? CITY MANAGER: Maybe we are talking about two different memos . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : I 'm talking about the memo of June the 155th to the Chief of Police when he was up in the hospital . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 4 MAYOR MEYERS : Well , you've raised it . You want to say what it says? COUNCILMAN COKINOS : I ' d like to know . . . I ' d like to know about what authority does Mr. Patterson have to write such a memo to the Chief of Police? CITY MANAGER: I just answered your question, Mr. Cokinos . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : What was that? CITY MANAGER: He has authority to write a letter to the Chief of Police . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Did he have your authority? CITY MANAGER: Yes, he did. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : . . . to write this memo? CITY MANAGER: I prefer that you show me the memo, sir. MAYOR MEYERS : This is a memo to the chief from Max civilianizing dispatch hiring freeze dated June 1511--h. CITY MANAGER: Before I left town, Mr. Cokinos , I directed Mr. Patterson to make contact with the Chief to at least begin discussion relative to the civilianization . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : That' s not a discussion. That ' s a directive EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 5 CITY MANAGER: He has authority as Director of Resource Management, Mr. Cokinos , to draft his memorandums how he will . I wasn' t in town. I didn' t see the memo but I did direct him to go ahead and begin discussion with the Chief . I1-- Is appropriate . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : But , Mr. City Manager, that' s not a discussion to write a memo like that . Do you think . . . do you think that' s a discussion? CITY MANAGER: I haven' t read the memo, Sir. I ' ll read it when I meet with Mr. Patterson. MAYOR MEYERS: I think the question' s answered. It was by the Manager' s authority. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : That he has to send . . . that he . . . he ' s got that authority by you to send out memos like that? Is that what you said? CITY MANAGER: I answered your question. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Is that what you said? CITY MANAGER: I answered your question. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Was it yes or no? CITY MANAGER: I a'-ready answered it . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: What is it? MAYOR MEYERS : What is your question? COUNCILMAN COKINOS : L� I d like to know whether or not he had Mr. Haines ' authority to send out memos like that? He won' t even answer me. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD VTU14E 21 , 1988 Page 6 MAYOR MEYERS : Well , I think he answered the question this way, and not to speak for him, but that he gave authority and was gone and has not seen the memo . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: But . . . but, Mayor, that was . . . he said to discuss . He didn' t say write memos . There ' s a lot of difference between . . . MAYOR MEYERS: Well . . I understand COUNCILMAN COKINOS : . . . a discussion and writing a directive memo as that. MAYOR MEYERS : I understand. The question was that he gave the authority and you are saying the memo was not appropriately written. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : That' s right. At the same time . . . MAYOR MEYERS : Very good. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : . . . at the same time, 44--hat' s not a discussion. That' s a direct memorandum to implement . Did you give him that authority to do that? CITY MANAGER: I answered you question, Mr. Cokinos . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Did you give him the authority? It ' s a simple question . . to do . . . to do that? CITY MANAGER: And, I gave you a simple answer. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Simpleton answer. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 7 CITY MANAGER: Probably. MAYOR MEYERS : That' s awful . That ' s awful . What ' s Mr. Benoit going to think coming from Atlanta and listening . . . did you ever attend Andrew Young' s meeting? Do they have any of this kind of action. MR. MARVIN BENOIT: Not this kind of action, no. MAYOR MEYERS : We ' ll curtail the discussion, then, and I don' t know what else to say. I 'm not briefed on the memo, either. END OF EXCERPT. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Requested by Councilman Cokinos CITY MANAGER ALBERT E . HAINES: The next item, Item E . 5 , before going to the item, there is a public hearing. A condemnation has been scheduled for today' s meeting for consideration of five vacant buildings which were found on inspection to be in violation of the City' s dangerous structures ordinance . They include a facility at 800 Pearl, a fire-damaged facility at 2470 Concord Road, and three wood framed dwellings at 1122 Hazel , 3125 Magnolia and 4015 Willie Mae. After the hearing, the Council will be asked to consider an ordinance declaring the buildings to be public nuisances and ordering the owners to take the steps necessary for abatement. The ordinance also would provide the authorization for the City to caused to be removed six ( 6 ) other structures whose owners have failed to comply with earlier condemnation orders . The six (6 ) structures were considered at an earlier condemnation hearing and are not in the group scheduled for consideration at the hearing today. with that, mayor, in keeping with the former practice, we' d request that you open the hearing if there are specific areas to be looked at . MAYOR MAURICE MEYERS: very well , we would now declare this public hearing opened considering the condemnation of the five structures as outlined by the Manager. In a moment we will offer opportunity for Sherell Cockrell and Nick Toparcean to allow those property owners present who would care to respond or perhaps address Council relative to their properties . I guess I would want to get out of the way the one first who took opportunity and visited with you, Nick. Would you share that with Council so that they can be aware? She had to go back to work but I thought we ' d do that first. SHERELL COCKRELL, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Yes, the property that is located at 2470 Concord, the owner is Kenneth Furlow. Mr. Furlow has submitted a letter to the Department today indicating that he' s requesting . . he had to be present in Court today VISO I will be unable to attend your meeting. I would appreciate you rescheduling the meeting for two weeks before taking any action and allow us the opportunity to start the restoration process . " I would like to indicate to Council that we were requesting that the property be condemned and we were requesting that the order by razed or repair so he would still have that opportunity. Thank you. MAYOR MEYERS : Very good, then. Would you want to leave that as planned? MS . COCKRELL: Yes, sir. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 2 MAYOR MEYERS : Fine . It won' t impact what you are saying. Did the woman understand that? She knew that Council would be proceeding with its plan but that it would not impact what she was going to do and are they to get back to you to show evidence of what they are doing? NICKTOPARCEAN, CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR: I told her, Mayor, that we would go ahead with the proceeding and we would forward her a copy of the hearing and that this would not effect the abatement of it. MAYOR MEYERS : Okay, but relative to the evidence that they are doing something, are they supposed to get back with you? MR. TOPARCEAN: Right. MAYOR MEYERS : Thank you. Okay, Sherell, would you want to initiate now some conversation about the five properties and that way we can offer any citizens present opportunity to speak if they choose . Is your mike on? MS . COCKRELL: I think SO. The Community Development Department is requesting authorization from the City Council to raze or repair the five structures in accordance with the City' s Code and charge the property owners with the cost of the demolition. The properties are located at 800 Pearl, 1122 Hazel , 3125 Magnolia, 2470 Concord, 4015 Willie Mae. We have pictures of all of the structures available for Council if you' d like . I would like to address the first one because I think we have the property owner present and he is the only one that is present today. MAYOR MEYERS: very well, is the property owner present and would he care to make any comments relative to the property at 800 Pearl . MR. RIC WARCHOL, owner of structure located at 800 Pearl : I would like to hear the City' s side of it first. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 3 MAYOR MEYERS : I ' m sorry? MR . WARCHOL: If I could, I ' d like to hear the City' s presentation first . . . MAYOR MEYERS : Fine, we' ll be doing that and putting it up on camera. MS_. -COIC.-KRELL: Okay, the first structure is located at 800 Pearl . The owner of the property is Ric Warchol . The action requested is that the structure located at 800 Pearl be declared a public nuisance and ordered razed or repaired. Corrective measures must be taken to abate the thirteen ( 13 ) Lode violations . The structures has at least 50 percent or more damage or deterioration and the structure has at least 33 percent or more damage deterioration to its non-supporting members . A reinspection of the property was made on May the 25th, 1988, which revealed that the structure has not been repaired, removed or demolished in accordance with the City' s standards . Staff recommends to raze or repair the structure within 30 days . , At least two notifications have been mailed to the property owner. MAYOR MEYERS : Very well , then. I would offer opportunity now for public comment by the property owner or anybody else that would see fit to make any comment during this hearing portion. Just ask that you first identify yourself with name and address . MR. RIC WARCHOL: Ric Warchol, 1155 Interstate 10 South. First off, the notice that the City staff is referencing dated January 27th, I notice that they didn' t reference a meeting we held February 3rd at 2 : 00 p.m. in City Hall here of which only three staff members were able to attend and I asked for everybody including any Councilmembers that would like to attend be present at that meeting. Of which that meeting concluded with disregard this notice that I received. That notice states, let' s keep in mind this is a vacant structure, vacant building. There is no electrical , there is no plumbing. It states to repair interior flooring - they are concrete floors; repair interior ceilings , repair interior walls , repair interior doors , replace broken windows, provide an adequate ventilation system, maintain or repair heating system to operate properly and or provide a heating system or appliance whereas dwelling may be heated to 70 degrees Fahrenheit, provide plumbing to comply with the city of Beaumont Plumbing Code . There is no plumbing, I 'm not sure how to comply. Electrical to comply with the City of Beaumont' s Code. There is none, I ' m not sure how to comply. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 4 MR . WARCHOL continued: Anyway, we met and as I say it was disregarded as we went through some of the problems that had arisen, some of the things we have done and haven ' t done, the things we have complied with that the City has asked, going back to when I spent around $7 , 000 to fence in that entire structure and it was this City Council - not exact members - that asked me to remove the fence because it looked too much like a prison. And, when we removed that fence, that ' s when the problems began. I put up another fence that was in agreement with the Fire Department that was handling the citations and that fence has been trampled by not only people but by the construction work being done on the sewer work out front . We have tried to comply with the City' s demands numerous times which I noticed are not referenced in any of this conversation on the City' s side, including a meeting just on May 27th that I had with Al (Haines ) . He came out to my office . We visited. we had lunch, talked about keeping open communications , talked about that we were both on the same track to obtain the same goal and that' s renovating the structure . The structure is on the National Register of Historical Places . This City did designate * it, not at my request, on their own doings a Historical Cultural designation. - we had a nice long conversation and I find it hard to believe that the City Manager on May 27th had absolutely no idea that on May 31st a letter was going to go out to state that the City wants to tear this building down. Three days later. That one floored me. At . the same time the City is saying let ' s tear it down, the City' s other Department Housing Authority is applying for money to renovate it . As recently as June 7th, our Congressman, Jack Brooks , sent a letter to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development that states : "Dear Secretary Pierce, I am pleased to write on behalf of an application for Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Units for an important city in my district, Beaumont , Texas . Their project will provide 110 new housing units in a vacated hotel . The residents will be centrally located closed to commercial, recreational and public facilities , only two blocks away from a major municipal bus route. As I am sure you are aware, the City of Beaumont has experienced severe economic problems in the last several years . This project will help to revitalize an area greatly in need of our assistance and provide opportunities for economic development in the area as well . As new residents move in, so will new businesses catering to their needs . The Housing Authority has established an excellent record of providing quality affordable housing to the City' s low and moderate income residents . It is my understanding that both the City and a private bank have expressed their interest in financing rehabilitation costs and long-term . . . of the project. With your assistance, this project can be a great success . I appreciate your attention to Beaumont' s application. There' s a worthy project" so on and so forth, Thank you. . . . That ' s as recently as June 7th. I 'm not quite sure our Congressman knows that we' re here today because of a letter I received May 31st, seven days prior to his , saying that the City wants to condemn the building. I 'm not sure where we ' re at. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 5 MR. WARCHOL continued: Does the Housing Authority want to try and get these grants to renovate the structure or do we want to tear the building down? Are we wasting time applying for grants if we want to tear it down or if we tear it down are we going to tear it down and then say oh there was money to renovate this historic structure? Also, on may 27th, the meeting with Mr. Haines , I showed Mr. Haines the first positive piece of business that I ' d received on that property since I got involved with it. It was an offer from an out-of-town company dated May 24th, I ' d just received it . I can' t quite comprehend that maybe this Council wasn ' t made aware of that either because this is an offer to bring in or for a company in Dallas to move into Beaumont and renovate it into some corporate office space as well as some assembly space for their product and renovate the rest of the structure for rental space . for kind of hard to sell a structure when you've got a condemnation hearing pending and again we go back. You know, I met with Mr .• Haines on May 27th. Not one word was mentioned about condemnation or dilapidated structures and three days later a letter comes out stating it. I think we are lacking some great communication within this City. Maybe this is why the building still sits like it does . I don' t have the answers but, boy, we' ve got some problems . Thank you. MAYOR MEYERS : Thank you. Any other comments, please. MR. BEN ROGERS, 2030 Thomas Road: Mayor and members of the Council, members of the City staff . Ben Rogers . I ' m here not at the request of Ric Warchol . I heard that there was going to be this hearing on the condemnation and I called Ric and asked him if what I heard was correct and he said it was and he related some of those things that he reviewed with the Council here today. And, so, I am really at a loss to understand what' s happening. I know the inner-personal relationship between Ric and the council and the Mayor may not be at the best but let ' s set that aside and let' s assume that somebody else came into the City other than Ric and his partner was here - not his partner, but some third party and we had this project here which, A. , it ' s on the National Record. It' s an historical building and I don' t know if anyone has the right to destroy that building, to demolish it without getting an Act of Congress because I know the problems T had with one building when we went to raze it . And, so let' s put Ric aside for a moment and talk about another building that' s here in Beaumont at the corner of Forrest and Broadway which is the old St. Theresa Hospital Building. And, I say the photograph. I look at this building on a daily basis because it' s right out of my office window and I can' t help but see it and my heart goes bad every time . . . you know, I really hurt when I think what Ric has tried to do and what money has been put into that building and the need to create a more beautiful atmosphere in the area - what can you do? And, thinking about getting this letter to demolish that building. EXCERPT PROD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 6 MR . ROGERS continued: Then I drive to the Temple . It ' s right across from the Temple and you look at a building there that is far worse , weeds growing up all over it. You don' t know, you know, who has priority over there, but if you are going to talk about a demolition and try to clean up, I think the City needs to take a good look at the old St. Theresa Hospital building if you haven' t already done so and then tell the citizens what we are going to do over there . It hasn' t been too long ago, I think it was a year ago last December, when I , Suzy Juncker and one of my brothers visited every savings and loan institution in this area and every bank and we had commitments to do the Waterford Hotel project and were committed with the banks and savings and loans in excess of $3 . 0 million. we went after $3 . 0 because that ' s what Ric said it would take. We exceeded that goal . We did it only as individual citizens, had no monetary involvement , had no real estate involvement, but were trying to do it because the City needs that building. The City needs a downtown suite hotel and that' s what Ric wanted to do and we came to Ric with the list of the banks and he was grateful and he appreciated it, ,got information off and missed the time table that they had allotted Ric by one week I believe, somewhere in that neighborhood.. And, so, we sat back saying what ' s going to happen now. Nothing really happened because I think Ric has lost his heart to do anything, you know, to move forward. You reach that point . I know sometimes for someone to understand it but when you've put in all that energy, time, effort, sweat and money and there' s no one helping, you take that sort of attitude . To make that even a little more serious to him is when the City came forward and said we ' ve got a do-able project. We ' ll do the Stedman Building and I thank the Lord and I thank you all for the work you' ve done on that job because that ' s going to be very creative and it ' s going to work and it' s going to be great; but, why that got priority over the Waterford Hotel , I don' t know. But, if that ' s a do-able Job, this one certainly was a do-able. The Housing Authority talks about using it for a housing project. They' ve got the wherewithal , they' ve got the funds , they've . . . I understand it ' s locally been approved. They are willing to go with it but they need the City of Beaumont to say we can lend our support with the income that you have from the federal income on those various Block Grants , et cetera, but it doesn' t look like it' s going that direction and, then, Ric turns up with a letter . . . these people have been here with a group out of Dallas who give him an actual bona fide offer to do something with that building subject to getting other government approvals . You know, all this happening within a matter of. . .May 27th is the day I heard, so just a matter of a few weeks . If the order is to . . goes into demolish and do away with that building, that kills every opportunity that he has . The letter from Jack Brooks was probably solicited by the Housing Authority. I don' t know who else would have done it to get Jack Brooks to move forward. So I am glad Jack is doing that. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 7 MR. ROGERS continued: So, I recognize the fact that it is not a quality building as it is right now and it does have some hazards to the public and creates that public nuisance as you called it but if you can defer any action as though it never happened and let Ric run his route with it or better yet, call Ric in at one of the Planning meetings and see what the City can do to put that building into use for the suite hotel, the 100-unit suite hotel . My brothers and I were committed at one time, to Ric said if you can do it, we ' ll put some money in to that project. We are not looking for a return . We ' ll do it as a community involvement . We' ll do it as something to help spark it to give you some more credibility so that others then may follow. We are still open to that same involvement with Ric . No partnetship, no return, just because it would be good for the area and good for the City. I ask. all of you to reconsider and don' t take any action on this; file it away in one of those drawers like you filed away the need for a light somewhere because nothing has ever happened and just let it go away. Ric will work on it if he can get your cooperation. Thank you. MAYOR MEYERS.: Are there any other comments? Very well, does Council have any questions or do you want to move right on into the others and then come back to each? COUNCILMAN COKINOS: I have a question, Mayor. When a building is designated as a historical building, what ' s the procedure as far as the protection of this building is concerned? MS . COCKRELL: First of all you try to make sure if there' s any source of funds available at all to restore it. You try to get those funds from the Historical Trust of the State of Texas and those funds are appropriated from the federal government; however, to my knowledge, there isn ' t any monies available for rehabilitation. There are some planning grants that have been available in the past towards that effort. I am aware that even with the Tyrrell Library, we ' ve gone forward to attempt to secure those types of funding. Now, that structure I believe is on the National Register of Historic Places . If there isn' t any monies available to restore the structure and we can' t rebuild or use the structure in a manner then and the structure is creating a hazard to health and safety and welfare, does not mean that the City can' t tear it down. It does mean that we would have to notify the State, we would have to justify why we are going forward with that procedure but those are the procedures that we would have to follow. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 8 COUNCILMAN COKINOS: It would have to be the National Registry and the State. They would have to be notified before we you' d take any action, is that not correct? MS . COCKRELL: They would have to be should be notified at the time prior to our demolishing the structure . What we are coming before Council today to do is to condemn the structure as a public nuisance. We are requesting that that order be razed or repaired. we are aware of the fact that some efforts being made towards trying to renovate the property. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : It says here that the structure has 50 percent or more damage or deterioration but back on your slip as a substandard building inspection report, it says "does the structure have 50 percent or more damage or deterioration" and you say "no" . Then, what is correct? MS . COCKRELL: Let me get that particular report, just a minute. We said for that specific structure, that there are at least 13 Code violations . We identified what those Code violations , that' s a part of the City' s Code of ordinances, before a dangerous structure can be declared a dangerous structure to fit into that definition, the structure either has at least 50 percent damage or deterioration or the structure has at least 33 percent or more damage or deterioration to non-supporting members . It may fall under both categories or one or the other of those categories . It doesn' t always have to be both. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : It doesn' t have to be both? MS. COCKRELL: It doesn' t always have to be both. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: And, so, when you say 50 percent or more damage, it just says the corrective measures , is that not correct? MS. COCKRELL: Yes, what you have in your inspection report, those detailed things that Ric went over with you, those are the things that we are identifying that needs to be done in order to bring the structure up to the City' s minimum housing code standards in order for that structure to be viable to be utilized for occupancy. . . . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: And, that . . . go ahead, excuse me. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 9 MS. COCKRELL: And, that' s what we do on all our vacant structures . We don' t want them to just sit there and just be boarded up. Council changed the Code to require if any money or investment is made into the property to bring up it into certain standards so that the structure can be occupied. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Were you aware of the letter that Mr. Warchol mentioned about our astute Congressman Jack Brooks making efforts to . . to get some financing for Mr. Warchol? MS. COCKRELL: I 'm aware that the Beaumont Housing Authority has requested and sent forward to the Department of Housing and Urban Development a letter requesting financial assistance in trying to renovate the property. This City department itself wrote a letter in support of that and we are certainly still in support of that. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Do you feel that we should wait until . . let this take the course that Jack . . Congressman Jack Brooks is taking to see if we can get the money to rehabilitate this building? MS . COCKRELL: I feel that we should treat this property as we are treating all of the properties that are substandard. I think that it should be condemned by Council . We will pursue with the property owner and Jack Brooks and anyone else that' s interested in renovating the property. We are not talking about tearing it down. We are talking about the beginning of initiating the process of condemning the building, though. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : If you do that then . . . then . . . the chances to proceed of getting any money would be nil , would it not? MS. COCKRELL: No, sir. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: If you condemned the building? MS . COCKRELL: It wouldn' t have any impact on it whatsoever, not as far as securing the federal grants for it. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 10 COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Wouldn' t it help if we just leave it alone? MS . COCKRELL: No, sir. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Would it help Mr. Warchol if we leave it alone and let it take its course? MS . COCKRELL: No, sir . It' s in violation of the City' s Code and we are to enforce those Codes and I am not handling this structure any differently from what we are handling all structures . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Most of the damage has been done because of practice there in the building, has it not? MS . COCKRELL: No, sir. COUNCILMAN LEE: What practice do you mean? COUNCILMAN COKINOS: SWAT Team. COUNCILMAN LEE: SWAT Team? COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Yes , haven' t they been using that building? MS. COCKRELL: I think perhaps our Legal counsel can address that issue. I believe, based on some information that Mr. Warchol had indicated previously, that they had been using the building. Since that, though, I had support and sent documentation to the Police Department and our chief indicating that that is a dangerous structure and it should not be used for that purpose. Lane . . . CITY ATTORNEY LANE NICHOLS: I don' t know whether they are using it or not. They had . . . we had provided them with or obtained from them a release . . . I mean, we gave them a release that allowed the SWAT Team to practice in the structure . I don' t know whether it ever occurred or not of my own knowledge. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Well, then, maybe Mr. Warchol can answer that or Mr. Rogers can answer that question. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 11 MR. WARCHOL: The SWAT Team used to use it. It was fine with me . I received the letter Sherell sent the Chief of Police dated April 29th or so telling them not to use the structure anymore. They' ve been using it for years . . . . . . . a very good training facility for them. If you are talking about dangerous structures, that building is structurally sound. It is not going anywhere . It is solid, more solid than city Hall . I ' ve got engineering four inches thick on that building. I had that thing checked out before I ever put a dollar into it. When we are talking about dangerous structures, what are we talking about. The windows are broken out. I noticed they were big on showing in the video the College Street side, but did anybody look . . . I mean the Pearl Street side but if you look at the College Street side, there' s not a broken window in that building on the College Street side. Why the windows are all broken on this side, I don' t know, but, you know, we keep talking about dangerous structures . Is it a dangerous structure because it doesn' t have a heating system that maintains 70 degrees temperature in that facility? That' s almost ludicrous . The list I went down which this City and its staff members told me to forget about when I met with them on that notice within the time frame, February 3rd, of which nobody on this Council or the City manager' s Department felt the emergency or the importance to even attend that meeting. They said ignore it . There' s $4 . 0 or $5 . 0 million dollars worth of work on that slip and you get thirty days to do it? I mean, I don' t even think we are talking in realistic terms . I 'm not sure if anybody understands is what is being said about this . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS: Let me ask a question that we ask at all hearings, Mr. Warchol . And, let me come back to an inference relative to personal side. I have absolutely no personal interest in this property or in Mr . Warchol . would you tell us a little bit about what you plan to do to remedy the fact that the building is unsafe, the building is unsightly. Stop telling us all about what' s wrong and tell us about what you might intend to do to correct it. We are trying to do what we are trying to do through our entire City and that' s make it better. That is an ugly, unsightly, unsafe property and we' d like to hear something about what you intend to do to improve that. You are not speaking at all about that. You are talking about everything that somebody is doing or isn' t doing. The purpose of the hearing today is not to come down on you or anyone else but to address problems throughout our community as we will address that property on Forrest Street as Mr. Rogers mentioned. It' s a difficult task but would you tell us what you intend to do, if you care to, to make that property safe. MR. WARCHOL: Well, the first thing we have to decide what' s safe? MAYOR MEYERS: Well, I think the beginning starts with removal of all broken glass , closing up the property so that people cannot get in and out of it and whatever else is required. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 12 MR. WARCHOL: See, this is where you have to come from . . . the developer spend some money. When I did that and had that facility secured, it was this City that told me to please remove it. It looked too much like a prison and I did it at this City' s request and since that time we 've had nothing but problems and then after I took the fencing down, the City said well the parking garage is exposed. I said I knew that, that' s why the fence was up. MAYOR MEYERS: Well, relative to the decisions that this City, it' s our City . . . . . . MR. WARCHOL: . . . . . . dirt in there. I 'm not sure I 'm going to spend any money on that project today. I say that but yes we did get an offer on that facility, a bona fide offer, that I showed the City Manager when we met on May 27th and no, nobody is going to buy a facility that is under condemnation . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS : t. Sir, I would contradict you because I am thoroughly familiar with the investors and the condemnation or not had nothing at all to do with their interest in that property. They have, I understand . . . . . . again, I would come back because I think it is in your interest if I 'm or anyone else is to do what ' s in your best interest, I would like to hear what you propose to do from this point forward. MR. WARCHOL: Well, I think one of the best shots that we have going for us on the facility at this kind is with the Housing Authority and I have absolutely no knowledge other than a letter I received here and there what the Housing Authority is doing, is it even a realistic goal to look at, should I be doing something for them? Nobody has contacted me . Like I say, I get a letter here and there, I 've got the letter from Brooks , a letter that Sherell sent out saying they were applying for money. Is that happening today, tomorrow? Or is it for five years? MAYOR MEYERS : Anything like that that would occur again I think you have to recognize would only be motivated by the fact that we have a strenuous effort to improve the appearance of our entire City and if the Housing Authority might be fortunate enough to be able to secure some assistance to turn that property into something desireable then that would only be beneficial to you or to whoever owns it and them but, in the meantime, somebody give me some assistance. Are there some immediate remedies . that Mr. Warchol would be expected to acknowledge to help Council in what they are looking at today? EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 13 MR. WARCHOL: I ' ll tell you. This is what should have happened on May 27th when the City Manager came out there when we could sit down at an open table and discuss the types of remedies but nothing was mentioned. If you ask me, we' re wasting time . That' s what we should be doing . . . saying, Ric, come on down . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS : My questions . . . my questions are based purely in your interests and, if you choose not to respond, I can only assume that your intent is to do nothing. Yes . . . COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: I ' d like to make a comment. Many times we come to situations like this and we have to make decisions on what we feel is best for the City. Now, I do understand some of the problems that you' ve had in the past, Mr . Warchol , but, at the same time, I understand he has made efforts to try and take 'Care of the problems . I know what you are up against in trying to get financing in this area. That' s a problem, but I think the efforts should not go unnoted. Now, that is the purpose of the City Council . If we didn' t need situations where there was opportunity to make amenities there would be need for council . Then, you could just go by the law and enforce it strictly that way. * Now, based upon the information that I have and what I 've seen of your efforts in the past, sure, if he had the location secured, the City asked him to take it down, then I have problems in saying well , this is unsecure because of whatever the reasons are - if the city told him to take it down. That' s the first thing I want to find out. if we did ask him to take down the fence because of slightly appearance . That' s the first question. If that is so, regardless of what has happened in the past, we cannot continue to go on without any kind of indication of what' s going happen in the future . I don' t think 30 days is fair in stating that because I too have received a letter from the Congressman and if he is making attempts to do something for that structure, I think that is significant. We are trying to do things to enhance the downtown area, bring about economic development area so we have on one hand an unsightly location, but also we have on the other hand that same opportunity to bring about development in the City. So I think at this point we need to forget about what ' s happened in the past, quit talking about it and we need to determine what common ground can we meet on to move forward in the future . I think that is what the Mayor' s asking. That' s what I want to know, Ric . The first thing I would say . . . any time any condemnations come up before the Council , the first thing we have to do is make sure it is secure . okay, regardless of whether we told you to do that in the past, if we asked you to take it down, Ric, and now we are telling you to pick it up, board it back up, then, that' s wrong on the City' s part; but, it needs to be boarded up. It needs to be where no one can get in and what I want to hear is do you intend to address that particular issue, Ric? EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1968 Page 14 MR. WARCHOL: Let me tell you, you are absolutely right and that' s what I was saying. Through all this . . . . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Could you come to the microphone, Mr. Warchol, up here? MR. WARCHOL: . . . brought us here today is the simple fact I get a certified letter that wants to tear the building down. I don' t think I 'm unreachable. I don' t think there' s anybody here that wouldn' t know how to reach me . Councilman Brumley, it was a few Council meetings back, where you addressed the City Manager in that, you know, to do whatever they could to get this building taken care of . You know where to reach me. we see each other at Convention Bureau. Why couldn' t you come to me and say, Ric , let' s sit down and talk about this . Nobody has called me. That ' s what I am saying. Let ' s sit down and talk about - it and come to some remedy to bring this building into some shape until we can get something done . I just think it should be torn down. CITY MANAGER: Mayor, I think it' s . . . and I hesitated to make this statement, but I think it' s important that I do relative to communication. When I met with Mr. Warchol , it was at my request on May 27th. I believe that was the date you referenced, Ric. In that meeting, and the purpose of that meeting was clearly single-purpose and we discussed that from the outset and I hope I made that clear to Ric, that our interest was . . . my interest in meeting with Ric was essentially to find out what if any disposition plans he had with that facility and to also review with him the fact that there was in process between the Fire Marshall and the Building Department movement to identify that, from the provisions of the Code, that there were distinct and serious violations of that facility. I explained to Mr. Warchol that my purpose was not to discuss those violations, that they needed to run their course, but rather to make a determination as to what kind of disposition there may be if any to that facility. We discussed the interest that we had both heard about of the Housing Authority and the letter from an out-of-town investor or developer and I think we concluded the meeting, Ric, by both . . . essentially, my impression in our discussion was that you really had no idea as to any short term resolution of the problem of that building. And, I think I left the meeting with a clear understand that that was indeed the case but that in any event our City Departments , particularly our Fire Department and our Community Development Department had a responsibility in recognizing that there were distinctive problems with that facility to bring those out and to play them out. Mr. Warchol and I did not discuss that dimension of it and I think that needs to be stated very clearly to this Council and in this public hearing. He was aware of it and I was aware that there was a process going on in the City long before our meeting of May 27th and I don' t think it should come as a surprise to him or to me that in fact he was served with that notice. He was advised that he was in violation of the Code. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 15 MR. WARCHOL: You are exactly right, Al, and I did come down within . . . that' s was January 27th. I left the file in back . . . and I scheduled the meeting within the time frame. I think it gave me like February 11th to meet with this City and I called and set up the appointment. I met with Stanley Kidd, Sherell Cockrell and Nick (Toparcean) Nick was there . This was the only three that attended that meeting and we sat and we went down this list . I mean, first off, .I was flabbergasted by this list, you know, $4 . 0 or $5 . 0 million worth of work to a vacant structure and anyway that meeting was left with Sherell was going to look to see what kind of grants might be available out there. I mean we were making some progress but they basically we said okay forget this and let' s see what we can do positive and that' s what I am saying. I 'm willing to sit down with anyone, this Council at a Workshop Session, anything and let' s look at what can be done to short term . . to secure this building if that' s what it is . It is not a structurally unsound facility. . . . . . . CITY MANAGER: I guess , Mayor, that' s what I 'm trying to represent . . . MR. WARCHOL: . . . and if we want to have communication and conversation, I am more than willing but nobody has wanted that. CITY MANAGER: To this Council, I am trying to state that that communication has been ongoing. Had Mr. Warchol represented in any of the previous meetings either prior to or subsequent to the January meeting that in fact he was intending to do whatever it took to provide a protection relative to the very serious violations , particularly Fire Code and Building Code violations, in the form of barricading or putting up some kind of structure to prevent further deterioration of that facility and access by the public. He would not have been serviced that letter. We have no other choice but to bring it to this Council in this process and request that the Council act on it this way. MAYOR MEYERS: Let me mention something, and you' ve probably been in attendance at other hearings and you are probably familiar to know that I really don' t know of one instance that I can remember, now going on nine years of service to the City, with this Council or others , where, at this point in time , a citizen came before this Council and then stated that they would meet with our City staff and be able to sit down and work out the necessary arrangements to show good faith in securing a property, et cetera. The actions taken by this Council are, quite frankly and hopefully, to bring that about. I do not, however, personally offer any apologies for the action that is being brought forward today because I say very clearly that if we as a City are going to address this element of what I think is a dramatic concern for us to really be a finer city then we are just going to have to take the necessary steps to bring it about. The most desireable, without question, is to assist the property owner which we are trying to do. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 16 MAYOR MEYERS continued: I don' t know why you keep bringing up the Housing Authority. If something were to materialize there, I assume you would be the benefactor of a Christmas present so that would probably be the most wonderful thing that could happen but beyond that if it happens - I realize it, beyond that, what we are talking about today is what we should get a message out to every citizen in this community - We are serious about making this place really look good and if properties across the city need to be addressed to get the attention of property owners so that they will do what ' s necessary, that' s what we want . MR. WARC-HOL: Well, I ' d just like to throw in my recommendation that I think when that process begins it should begin with calling that property owner saying why don' t you come on down, let' s go over this facility, let' s look at it, let ' s talk about it. I think that . . . and that' s what I 'm saying. It doesn' t start with a certified letter out of the clear blue sky that we are going to tear the building down. I think communication is number one . . . MAYOR MEYERS: Well , this would be . . . this would be I guess a question . . . MR. WARCHOL: That' s what I 'm offering council . I 'm saying, I 'm stating it. If somebody wants to communicate, I 'm more than happy. I ' ll meet with the whole Council , one of the Council, the City manager, anybody, but I 'm not sure what this City Council wants me to do or the City staff wants me to do with that facility and until I am, I 'm not going to do anything; but I have to know what they want to do and $5 . 0 million worth of work, no, I 'm not going to do $5 . 0 million worth of work. MAYOR MEYERS: Well, let me ask you a question preliminarily of some of the things I think it will be very important for Council to know and then Mr. Warchol might be able to respond. some of the things that we might anticipate being done following say council ' s actions today. What might they be? MR. TOPARCEAN: Okay, Mayor, I' d - like to clarify first of all conditions or what a substandard building may be. Structural integrity is not always a condition that determines if a building is substandard or dangerous , in this case, a dangerous structure. We are looking at a building that is multi-storied here with open exposed elevator shafts . we are looking at a building that' s got excessive amounts of debris . There' s structural members that possibly could fall and injure people. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 17 MR. TOPARCEAN continued: The integrity of the building I would have to say the structure is a fairly sound building and I think it doesn' t take an architect or engineer to make that determination but our concern is safe-guarding the building even for Ric ' s best interest because ultimately his liability as owner could fall upon his shoulders if anything would occur in this building such as an injury by a pedestrian or a transient who may be sheltering himself in that location and that' s evidenced by the fact that there are bedding materials and that there are clothes stored in that building by transients . That' s a concern of the City. The other concern is that the issues of the Fire Code about a lot of debris being scattered about that could present itself as a threat to any firefighter that may have to in turn respond to any call at that location. On May 6 , 1988 , a letter was sent to Mr. Warchol from the Fire Marshall ' s office and it sited a section of the Fire Code which stated that the building needed to be secured and it needed to . . . well, in lieu . . . there' s a section here . . . this is from Captain Joe Tumbleson and it said, "On November 26 , 1986 , 1 gave permission for you to have .the fire lines serving the building disconnected due to extensive. damage of the sprinkler system. At that time, you were working toward keeping the building secured. These efforts have been to no little or to no avail . Therefore tinder provisions of the City of Beaumont Fire Code, Section 13- 27 . 42x, copy attached, I must by law require you to take any and all steps necessary to permanently secure the above-referenced structure. By law, you are allowed 48 hours upon receipt of this letter to accomplish this task. " The point we are trying to make, Mayor and Councilmembers , is that we are willing to work with Ric but we are at our means right now. We really have got to do something before this becomes a tragedy. MR. WARCHOL: Are you aware that after I received that letter I met with Chief Shelton and Tumbleson? MR. TOPARCEAN: In continuation of the 'Letter, "The senior building official, Mr. Stanley Kidd, is requested to advise this office when in his opinion the structure is secured on a permanent basis . This requirement also extends to the elevated parking garage adjacent to the hotel . You are requested to advise Mr. Kidd for an inspection at 838-0656 . If at the end of the 48-hour period no action has been taken, I will have no choice but to take further legal action as prescribed by law. " EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL �4 SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 18 MR. WARCHOL : I was Just asking, are you aware that we did meet on that after that letter was . . . . . . MS. COCKRELL: To my knowledge, Mr. Kidd did not have the opportunity to meet with you. The reason why we requested that everyone . . . . . . MR. WARCHOL: . . . I wasn' t saying any thing about Stanley MS . COCKRELL: . . . wait just a moment, Chief Shelton . . . everyone be a part of that meeting is because I think the question that we had as far as the discussion was what would be safe? What would secure? What kind of necessary action should take place in order to secure the building so that transients would not continue to pull the boards that you put on the building off and so forth? And, that was one of the reasons we had asked that all of us be present in that meeting so that we could give that and provide that information to you. MR. WARCHOL: You didn' t ask that in the letter. It said to contact Stanley Kidd . . . Stanley Kidd would do a final inspection. MAYOR MEYERS : Let me come back to the point in question, Ric . MR. WARCHOL: But then reference these letters, Mayor. What I am saying, you see, when we would get these letters, we would respond to them and we would take action. These letters . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS : Well, respond, yes . Action, no. . . . . . . MR. WARCHOL: Action, yes . Let me start with, you know, we took down the big fence. Then the boards kept getting knocked down. We had people down there almost on a daily basis putting those boards back up, almost daily putting them back up. Finally, I met with the chief again after another letter and the Chief is the one that said let' s just fence in these windows that the boards keep coming down and then you don' t have to worry about putting the boards back up so we fenced it in and we put barbed wire around the fence and you see what' s happened to that fence. That fence is less than a year old. You know, we keep working at it. We do keep making the efforts but we haven' t found something that is totally full proof to the transients that go into that facility. If we could house our transients someplace, maybe we would have a lot easier situations securing the facilities but that has been the problem and I don' t have the answers to it. That' s why I ' ve said and I will state one more time, if somebody wants to sit down and visit, I ' d be more than happy to because we . . . . . . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY 'COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 19 MAYOR MEYERS : Well , we are visiting today and we are in the process that I don' t think is unreasonable and as I mentioned earlier it is a process that historically people come before the Council and they speak to their desire to remedy problems with their properties, justified problems , and express an intent to correct them. This is exactly what I think should be done today. I think also Council has shown historically that rather than hard nosed, leniency is far more the case and so in speaking to you I guess honestly the responsibility to indicate a willingness to remedy the problem is really what this is all about. MR. WARCHOL: I certainly think we' ve expressed that. MR. ROGERS : I can' t help but come back and ask you to bear with me. one, I know what the book says and I know that the action that you are taking is the legal, lawful positiSn that you must take but you also understand that when the signed gels up there "condemned" , he may as well go home because that really puts the question marks in the mind of anybody who is going to look at that property. That ' s the practical approach. I don' t think any of you were on the Council when I fought the battle for Charlton Pollard to try to save that structure but it would be well to go back historically and look and see what happened and I believe that you ultimately . . . That was a property of the school district but I think ultimately what happened is that the City wound up demolishing that property, paying for the demolition and I think you still have it as one of your receivables as a judgment against that land out there, somewhere in excess of $150,000. Now, if someone is going to condemn that building, say, if you don' t demolish it, we will . This City better get ready to spend $400, 000 to demolish and then how it down to the ground. I haven' t talked to my brothers since I ' ve been sitting here but I' ll tell you what I will personally undertake to do and I think they' ll give me their blessings to say that we all recognize what transpired here and that something has to be done and that the City hasn' t got the funds with which to do it and put the lien against the property and I don' t know whether it would be safer to take out all of the glass that' s still in there and say that the glass element is now removed and then either fence in or board in that board floor. Certainly, as I stand here, the very day that you reglaze it, that night you are going to have the breakage, you know, unless you have full-time guards around there; but, whatever the practical approach is, I will tell this Council and the Mayor and the members of the staff, given some time, I will get a cost estimate of what it will take to preserve that property so that Ric can continue to pursue the best avenues to make that a useable building. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 20 MR. ROGERS continued: I also must call attention to the Council that you have some sort of right in there and I don' t know if it was done while you were all on the Council but I recall where you took back an easement of the front of those buildings and nothing can be touched without your approval and I don' t know whether . . how that would work. But, regarding all of that background, I ask you now to put the burden on Ben Rogers or Ben Rogers and brothers and we will see what we can do to assist to remove the immediate problem of anybody getting hurt. I think that ' s . . . and secondary to improve the visual , esthetic appearance of that property and I don' t know how much longer the City is going to be fooling out there with their underground work, but , mayor, I don' t know who has charge of that job, but it looks like the cost is running, running, and running and I hope it was on a fixed contract because somebody is running out of money. I thank you for your consideration. MAYOR MEYERS : Thank you very much for your interest and your offer. Does Council have any other questions of Mr. Warchol or staff relative to this property? Any other discussion? COUNCILMAN BRUMLEY: The only discussion I would have relates to what Mr. Warchol said concerning the meetings to discuss or do, I would never nor would I want staff to ever think they would represent or speak for the council nor would I ever speak on such a matter to tell someone forget about what the ordinance is, forget about what you' ve gotten. You know, I 'm a member of Council, I couldn' t do that. And, I think it has reached the point where the intent or the interest of the Council is for the safety and security of the building period. At the same time, there are Council members that are working toward making this a viable housing project but the intent is not to have a building open as a health hazard. And, I could never go and tell someone if you tell me that then don' t worry about the council , everything' s fine. That' s not . . . nor could any other Councilmember do that nor could any staff member or Fire Chief or City Manager or anyone else. A City manager couldn' t say forget about the rules and regulations concerning safe and unsafe buildings . That' s something that is very clear and they are charged with the responsibility of seeing not this building but every building meets those requirements . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 21 COUNCILMAN BRUMLEY continued: We ' ve got people here today in addition to this structure and we can' t say forget here but we can' t do to you what we've done here on this other piece of property because we have to be a consistency. There' s a fairness to it and there ' s people that . . . it may not be a $4 . 0 or $5 . 0 million building, it may be a $4 , 000 building but that $4, 000 is just like $4 . 0 million to them. But, most of all , their property is just as important to them and they sit down and, just like Maury said, they say this building is important to us and we want to put together a work program to make sure the building is secured and that ' s the greatest news we could hear because it tells us or tells me that there' s a pride not only in them and their property but also in the City to make sure the building doesn' t look or the house or whatever it might be. And I think that' s one of the intentions that we have here today is to secure the building . to make sure that none of these thousands and thousands of people that we are trying to get to come downtown whether it' s with boat races or Kaleidescope or whatever it is that they' re not going to be involved in a situation where their children are not going to be involved in a situation to where there ' s some type of danger inn them coming downtown•because of a building is not secured. I think you have to Provide that environment and at the same time you are providing that environment you are making it a very successful building whether it,-Is a housing unit or some other successful project . But , that' s my personal interest and I think that that' s what I would like to see come Out Of ' it if, it' s Mr. Rogers securing it, fine; if it ' s Mr. Warchol securing it, fine; but whatevek it takes to secure it, at the same time we are working along other avenues that' s what ' s the most important thing. MAYOR MEYERS : Thank you, Mike. Are there any other questions or comments? Yes, sir. MR. MARVIN BENOIT: Mayor and Councilmen, my name is Marvin Benoit, fairly new resident of here; been here since June of last year; came from Atlanta, Georgia; grew up in the local area, attended Lamar before I left. But, I 'm in here because it' s hot. And, I ' ve just been listening to what' s going on but just from my observation, it seems that the City staff is putting on an unfair burden and I think that we need to work together and to come to some compromises because I believe this man could make the commitment for whatever he' s been spending putting fences up and taking fences down, that he could cosmetically make that building look good. If you the Council could give him a commitment that the Police Department will keep the glass from being broken. I heard Mr. Rogers saying that it will do no good to replace the glaze because that night it' s going to all be broken. well , I just don' t think that should be when it' s less than one mile away from the Police Department . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1968 Page 22 MR. BENOIT continued: But I think cosmetically, if he was to repair it cosmetically, there ' s no way, if he' s worried about heating and cooling and all that, I think that yaIll are being unfair to him. And, like I said, I don' t even know the man, this is just an observation; but, I feel that we should be trying to compromise in some and like I say I think the burden is too much. You see people all the time that have a nice looking home on the outside . It could be a wreck inside but when you drive by it looks nice and I think that ' s what we should try to do, that as people drive by the downtown it looks nice . If he was to repair the first floor, replace all the glass , put good doors , lock it up, there ' s no way . . . You know, we should be able to provide police protection to save that . It doesn' t matter that the inside is all dilapidated. I do believe he should repair the sprinkler system because we don' t want the fire but for all the money he' s spending putting fences up, taking fences down, the fence is not going to solve the problem. The fence looks unsightly; but if he was to take that money and invest it on the cosmetic outside appearance of that building then I think we could both be happy. The Council would be happy, the City would..be happy. It looks nice. The gentleman would be happy because, you know, he ' s got time to regroup, try to sell the building, put in housing, anything else. And, I would just like to ask that yaIll do try to compromise with the man, you know, because now I think we have stopped negotiation. YaIll are coming hard on him, he' s backing off-, saying look "I 'm not doing anything else'! and like I said maybe if yaIll could get together, come up with some kind of compromise then we can both win - a win/win type situation. Appreciate the time. Like I said it was just a comment, an observation. MAYOR MEYERS: Thank you. Yes . . . COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Sherell, did we ask that the fencing and boarding be taken down at one town? MS. COCKRELL: Yes , let me clarify what the purpose of the fence was in the very beginning. When there were efforts made to restore that building, that was the fence for the construction efforts and that' s the type of fence that was put up. That fence was put up in the City' s right-of-way. Once that action wasn' t any longer going to take place, the request was to remove that fence but that was the type of fence and that' s the reason the fence was up, to my knowledge . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 23 MR. WARCHOL: It was a chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire on top. The same thing that is up now. MAYOR MEYERS: You moved from a wonderful city, Mr. Benoit, Atlanta is a beautiful city and I ' ve been there several times and we are pleased that you' re here and just to be sure that you understand in the interest of I guess equity, it is our intent to try and work with property owners . That' s how it gets done and I think in every instance, that' s Council ' s wish. Are there any other questions or comments relative to this item. I think it ' s safe to say without speaking for you, Mr. Warchol , but if in fact your silence indicates nothing, Mr. Rogers has indicated to Council that he has a willingness and desire to meet with staff relatively soon and work with them to secure the property, make it safe , and, God forbid, avoid the kind of thing like Mike indicated when we bring 25 or 30, 000 people downtown because somebody wanders into an open building and then we try to put out the fire after instead of trying to figure "out how we can, avoid it before which is really what this is all about . But, Ben,lis that a correct assumption? MR . ROGERS : Yes . MAYOR MEYERS: okay. I wanted Council to -know exactly what they would be dealing with. COUNCILMAN LEE : Well , we, generally in these situations , ask the property owner to develop a plan of work and that ' s essentially what we are doing at this point and, regardless of whether you call it condemnation or not, the purpose is to suggest a time frame in which to agree on some plan of action. And, that' s essentially what we are talking about here . MR. ROGERS : Give me thirty days . I 'm not going to be able to do the 11 points that were listed in that deal . I 'm just talking about as the gentleman said cosmetically to create the protective area and Ric, whoever takes that building is going to have to change every window, not only windows, frames, casings and the whole bit so putting new glass in it is not the answer at this time; but, from that point of view, I recall and I am sure you all have seen and probably didn' t note too closely, but that Stedman Building, it didn' t have one glass window that was in tact . Not a glass . Every one had been broken out and I guess the kids took potshots to see, you know, how close they could come to doing it. That' s the way of life; but, yes , you have a commitment from me, Sherell , whoever I need to talk with, maybe we will start before we even have the first meeting and then they can go look at it. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 24 COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Well , I 'm encouraged to know that Mr. Rogers is taking this step forward and also with Jack Brooks ' efforts to get funding, I think in all fairness also that I think that we ought to give them a little time and see what they can work out and let this positive position take place and I certainly would agree to give you as much time as you think is proper . And, I think this City Council should do it . MAYOR MEYERS : Are there any other questions or comments? Does Council choose to act on all of these upon completion and let them go on or take them individually. what have we been doing on this? Do you want to go on through? COUNCILMAN LEE: . . . all together . . . MAYOR MEYERS : Very good. Next . . . MS . COCKRELL: The next set of structures have been condemned by Council . The next six structures have been condemned by City .Council and the owners were ordered to either repair or . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS : Let me back up. on the other four condemnations . . . are any of those people present? MS. COCKRELL: Not to my knowledge. MAYOR MEYERS: Because we haven' t discussed that. I want to be sure. That would be the property at 1122 Hazel , 3125 Magnolia, 2470 Concord has been present, and 4015 Willie Mae . Okay. MS . COCKRELL: Mayor, would you like me to give those individual reports? I thought unless there were some comments, we weren' t going to go through the detailed reports. MAYOR MEYERS: Okay. I just wanted to be sure no one was here. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 25 CITY MANAGER: I think, Mayor, close the hearing. MAYOR MEYERS : Close the hearing? If there are no other comments then on those five properties as discussed including that at 800 Pearl, we would declare this hearing portion of that condemnation of the five structures closed. Sherell . . . CITY MANAGER: Mayor, then, and council , the action being requested is an ordinance . . . Council consider for adoption an ordinance "entitled an ordinance finding certain structures to be public nuisances and ordering their repair or demolition; providing for severability and providing for a penalty. " MAYOR MEYERS : Does Council have any questions . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Since we ' ve only got about four of these, Mayor, I ' d like to vote on them individually because . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS: . . .have no objection. Does anyone have an objection? No objection. We ' ll vote on them individually CITY CLERK: Excuse me, please, mayor. Will this be a vote on the recommen cations or individual votes on the ordinance . MAYOR MEYERS : Well, the recommendation as read by the Manager is applicable to each of the four. We ' ve excluded 2470 Concord but the Councilman obviously prefers and wants to be able to have some individual . . . . . . CITY MANAGER: Mayor, we have not . . . 2470 Concord does not need to be excluded in order for them to be able to meet the timetable. MAYOR MEYERS: Oh, that' s correct. That' s correct. Very well . COUNCILMAN LEE: Which is essentially the same thing we are talking about 800 Pearl . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 26 MAYOR MEYERS : Yes, I understand but I forgot. I thought we had determined at first we would exclude it but then we spoke to her and told her that we would move on but . . . okay, very well . CITY MANAGER: Again, we are talking about a thirty day time period for the owner to come forward to outline to the City what steps they would be willing to take to resolve the nuisances . MAYOR MEYERS : Very well, the first property, 800 Pearl . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Now, are we talking about razing or repair or are we talking about giving Mr. Rogers and Mr. Warchol an opportunity to come forward with something positive? CITY MANAGER: I think it would be helpful to perhaps identify both Sections I and 2 of the ordinance that' s in your legal instruments section of the agenda. Section 1 references the five properties 800 Pearl , 3125 Magnolia, 4015 Willie Mae , 1122 Hazel and 21470 Concord as being a . . each building being a public nuisance and in violation of the Code and Section 2 is an order that the owner or owners of the following buildings - being those same five properties - be ordered to either repair or demolish and remove said structures within 30 days . If such action is not taken, a request will be made that Council authorize the appropriate demolition and removal of structures . Now, the process is under Sections 1 and 2 the owners can come forward and identify a program to the city that would resolve the specific concerns that the City has relative to these facilities . if they fail to do so then we would have to come back to the City Council to get authorization from Council to either demolish or pursue other action so this is the first step to a potential demolition but not necessarily. It' s up to the owner. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: May I ask a question. What effect, Mr. Warchol or Mr. Rogers , would this have on the motives and plans of Congressman Brooks or the Housing Authority by coming and asking you to do this within 30 days . You need more time than that. MR. ROGERS : I ' ll let Ric respond to that . I 'm just going to say that maybe we don' t understand what I 've said. If action is taken to move forward in this condemnation proceeding, my bets are off. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 27 COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Well , that' s what I thought you meant. MR. ROGERS: Yes . I asked for time to set this aside and vote no on this one ordinance . Give us some time, whatever you think is reasonable just to do that phase of it and if I succeed, nothing has been lost . If I fail, you go right back, but I think . . I want to be sure everybody understands that. If that condemnation proceeding moves forward on that property today, my bets are off. I wouldn' t do one thing. But, if given some time, set this aside or vote it no, I walk over there now and we go to work. . . . . . . COUNCILMAN LEE : What sort of time frame are you . . . . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : well , you need more than 30 days for all of this , would you not? I don' t see why not . . . is there any. . . (Mr. Rogers : 60 days . . . j at least . . . why should we take action until . . today on this matter until you can move forward and give us something positive. MAYOR MEYERS : As the property owner, Mr. Warchol , do you have any comments relative to your interest or 'desire to respond to the discussion today? Very simply put, what . . . what are your plans? What do you plan to do? MR. WARCHOL: I already stated, Mayor, that I ' d be more than happy to sit down and visit with the staff to see what we can work out. MAYOR MEYERS : I don' t know what that means . MR. WARCHOL: I don' t know what that is either. I don' t . . . . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS : We want a safe, secure building . . . . . . MR. WARCHOL: I don' t know if that' s a fence or boards or what. I am not going to continue to run these courses that don' t get us any where. .I want to do something positive . . . . . . . the City staff sit down and throw some ideas on the table, you know, because I don' t have any ideas . I 've tried the boards , I ' ve tried the fences . We tried the Secret Service when the vice President was here and they couldn' t secure it, so we 've got to sit down and talk about it . . . . . . I don' t have the answers , I 've stated that. Willing to do something - yes , I am. I stated that, too. You' re missing that point . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 28 MAYOR MEYERS : Are there any other questions? Any other comments , discussion? COUNCILMAN COKINOS : I ' ve got one more comment to make. I think it would be a . . . be a slap in the face to Congressman Brooks making these efforts up in Washington and for us to take such an action today. I don' t think . . . you are talking about a lack of communication, boy, you' ve got it right here . And, here ' s our Congressman trying to do something to save our . . . the building . . . MAYOR MEYERS : For the benefit of this maybe happening, mention the fact that Senator Gramm has been working on it, too. We wouldn' t want the media to only speak to Congressman Brooks . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Well , I didn' t know that . I 'm glad you advised me of that so you' ve got everybody working on it . Give the person time. I don' t think he wants special treatment . MAYOR MEYERS: The reason they are working on it, Councilman, is they have seen the building. They understand the desperatness of the situation and any action today will have no bearing whatsoever on their desire. It would accelerate their efforts . . . . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : If you live in Beaumont, everybody' s seen it. MAYOR MEYERS: It would accelerate their efforts in my judgment because I think they would have a deeper appreciation for the severity of the situation. That ' s my personal opinion. But, I can understand what you are saying. I just don' t happen to agree . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Thank you. And, I still think . . . I still think we ought to delay taking action ' til we see what kind of course we are going to take to help Mr . Warchol out . And, it' s a slap in the face to Congressman Brooks for us to take action today. You may laugh . . . . . . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1968 Page 29 MAYOR MEYERS : It' s not a slap in the face to congressman Brooks . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Well, this is my personal feelings . MAYOR MEYERS : Yes, sir. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Sherell , if today, Council took the action of condemning the place, it would be another 30 days and then it would move to . . . come back to Council for demolition, correct . MS . COCKRELL: It would be much longer than that . What we are requesting today . . . COUNCILMAN SAMUEL About how long. MS. COCKRELL: L: . . . is just declare this building a public .nuisance so that we can work with the property owner in establishing a work program or plan to assist in renovating that building. MAYOR MEYERS : And, there would be no condemnation sign posted. MS . COCKRELL: No condemnation sign posted. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Okay, about how long would the process be to tearing the building down? MS . COCKRELL : It would certainly depend upon the property owner. If he responded to us within that 30 day frame of preparing a work program and that work program included making that building non-accessible to the public. If be Just indicates to us how he plans on securing it and go forward and tell us about any outstanding proposals or projects that he has in reference to trying to renovate that property. It depends upon him as to how long it would be before it would come back to council . we are willing to work with him as flexible as we possibly can. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 30 COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: okay, so it could be . . . it' s definitely going to be thirty days before anything will be done . Following that thirty days , it would be dependent upon the plan that he brings to the City, City staff, and the recommendation. okay, if nothing is done at that point, there would be an additional thirty days before demolition began, so that' s sixty days if nothing is done . MS. COCKRELL: It would be an additional thirty days before we sent out another letter setting another hearing for Council to act on it. After that, before we would pursue it, we would then try to pursue - if he doesn' t do anything or if he hasn ' t prepared a work program and• we bring it back to you and you - actually condemn the building, we would pursue then to go forward in the Courts to try to abate the building. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: So, we are talking about possibly ninety days before it would be torn down . MS . COCKRELL: . . . or longer before any action . . . CITY MANAGER: Councilman, I don' t think we . . . I don' t think you have seen any previous building brought back to Council before 3 or 4 months for approval to go ahead and destroy . . . . . . COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: okay, CITY MANAGER: It' s been generally a six-month time frame from the date that this kind of action is taken until the date we come back to Council . . . . . . COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Six months? Okay . . . . . . CITY MANAGER: Sure, I think these you have on section 4 are at least six months old. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 31 COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Okay, what I am getting at is if nothing were done, that would be another ninety days before anything would happen, before the building would be boarded up. If the Council were to not take action today, at least there' s a commitment to board up the building. So, what happens between today and those ninety days? It ' s going to remain open, accessible, and if we don' t take action today, there' s a commitment to board the building up so . . . . . . CITY MANAGER: If council does not take action one or more of these today, then we would assume they would go ahead and bring the property into compliance . If they do not, then we would come back to Council with a new Section I and a Section 2 to start the process again. And, again, I think it is important to note that the action under Sections 1 and 2 are not to condemn a building but to notify the property owner that there has been a identified public nuisance on the building and that they have a responsibility within a* ,thirty-day time frame to come to the City and tell them what they intend to do fix it. That ' s all we are asking. That' s all we ' ve asked Mr. Warchol for some time. Mayor, I was going to mention procedurally what you' vegenera'lly done if you wanted to act on individual ones is to have .Counc�,.imembers motion by motion of adopting the ordinance delete certain addresses . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Let me ask you. How long has that building been vacant? CITY MANAGER: I don' t know. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Anybody know? MAYOR MEYERS: Mr. Warchol knows . MR. WARCHOL: Thirteen years . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Thirteen years. Now, what in the world would thirty or sixty more days to give him where we' d be able to work something out? It' s been empty for all of these years . What will happen in the next thirty days or sixty days to give these people an opportunity to come up with a plan for the City? And, I think it' s . . . I think it' s ridiculous . COUNCILMAN LEE: The possibility of somebody getting killed. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 32 COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Well . . . there' s a possibility you walk across the street and get killed. COUNCILMA14 LEE : There you go. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : And, I think . . I think we ought to delay just . . . delay this thing for sixty days and see what kind of plan that Mr. Rogers and Mr. Warchol comes up with. MR. ROGERS : I 'm not going to have a plan. I 'm going to have it done . MAYOR MEYERS: Let me make a suggestion . . . . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: To have it done. There you are so why are we going through this? MAYOR MEYERS: Let me make a suggestion in the interim, Councilman. Is there any other property that Council would like to delete from one motion? . I think that' s where you are trying to steer me so then we can come back to the 800 Pearl question, that being the other four properties . Does council care to discuss any of those individually? If not then, do we have a motion? COUNCILMAN SAMUEL made the motion to approve; COUNCILMAN MOORE seconded �the motion. MAYOR MEYERS : And a second, thank you. Any further discussion on those four properties . Those in favor, signify by saying Aye? (All responded Aye) Opposed? (None) Very well , we will continue the discussion now on the other, 800 Pearl property. Any Councilmembers comments . . . . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: well, I 'd still like to see us delay this . . taking action on 800 Pearl until about sixty days or ninety days, whatever days that Mr. Warchol and Mr. 'Rogers would like to have . . . . . . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 33 MR. ROGERS : Ric is not involved in this . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Okay, Mr. Rogers, then, and I think we ought to wait and see what . . . what can be done instead of us going through this condemnation cases and so forth on 800 Pearl Street. MAYOR MEYERS : We would entertain a motion. COUNCILMAN LEE : I would move for approval . COUNCILMAN BRUMLEY: Second. . MAYOR MEYERS : Have a motion and a second for approval . I would now ask for any further discussion . COUNCILMAN MOORE : Just one comment. MAYOR MEYERS: Yes , sir. COUNCILMAN MOORE : Mr. Rogers made it perfectly clear that he' s going to be responsible and it ' s going to be done in thirty. So, it really doesn' t' present a problem. Mr. Rogers, that was you statement that . . . ? MR. ROGERS : Yes, a reasonable time, thirty or sixty days . We' ll get action on this COUNCILMAN MOORE : Okay, fine. If that be the case, then we don' t have a problem here then. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Question. EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 34 COUNCILMAN LEE : But he said if we suggest that we are going to pass this ordinance that he would not in fact do anything. COUNCILMA14 MOORE : This is public nuisance . This is not condemnation. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Question. COUNCILMAN LEE : I know it' s a public nuisance but he has said . . . he has gone on record saying that if we suggest this being a public nuisance and vote that something has to be done within thirty days, he would not come forward with his assistance, isn' t that . . . am I correct or incorrect? MR. ROGERS: I 'm not good at all that mumbo gumbo. . . . If you take action and condemn that property or move forward to give notice that it is going to be condemned, I ' ll have no part of it. If you let everything remain as it is as of right now, I ' ll .gb *-right over there and we' ll go to work and we will correct the things that• need•; correcting to make it safe. Now, that ' s as plainly stated as I can state it. So, if you take action to move forward on this and give us six months or whatever that is , I don' t need six months . ' I need to be able to walk away from this Council saying, go ahead, Ben Rogers , we trust you. Get that place fixed up. I am not involved with Ric . Ric has no bearing on what I am going to do. I 've got his approval safeguard it and that is what we are going to do. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Let' s give Mr. Rogers a chance. Let' s give him a chance . . . CITY MANAGER: I ' ve got to . . . . . . COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Question. There' s a motion on the floor . I 'd like to now what that motion is? COUNCILMAN LEE: The motion is to raze or repair within thirty days. COUNCILMAN COKINOS: Raze or . . . no. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Raze or repair within thirty days . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 35 COUNCILMAN LEE : Essentially it is to come forward with a plan . . . a work plan . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS: No, well , this is not what the Mayor . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS : Hold it. Let one person talk at a time, everybody' ll get there . . . everybody will get their questions answered. COUNCILMAN LEE : 'Let me let me ask the Manager to respond to make the comment he was going to be making. CITY MANAGER: I think it was more of a question. First of all , the definition of safety relative to this process . has got to be defined, not by the property owner, but by the City, specifically the Fire Marshall and the Chief Building Inspector. And, I guess the question is, is Mr. Warchol either through Mr. Rogers or Mr. Rogers representing the property owner willing to do that . Secondly, the City' s cause of action is not to Mr. Rogers . It is to the property owner and 1 think that' s perhaps not in the form of a 'question but in the form of a comment that we must make sure is very clear. It is the property owner who is responsible and it only through the property owner that we have cause or we have action. MR. ROGERS : Mr. Haines , I am not invited to do this by any person. There is a need for something to be done now and I am responding to that need. If someone was drowning out in that pool , I ' d probably go through that glass window to try to save them. I wouldn' t go round and round and round and get there 10 minutes too late. I see the need now. I want to respond to it. You can either give me that time to do it if you are really concerned about the City' s . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS : Well , let me . . . let me inject this thought . In the interest of achieving what we want and recognizing that probably because it' s you, because I think you can understand that when you are faced with so many situations like this . . . MR. ROGERS: I understand that . . . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 36 MAYOR MEYERS: . . . we have to deal with the property owners . My feeling is we would probably do well to give Mr. Rogers thirty days to show what he is going to do and schedule this for another look at that time and our interest is to get that building safe and secure and if you are saying to us that you are going to do it, I . . . It' s not my business to ask why. . . . . . . COUNCILMAN COKINOS : So, therefore, we need a motion to . . . . . . MAYOR MEYERS : Well , no, right now we have a motion . . . . . . COUNCILMAN LEE : I made the motion and I can withdraw that motion. COUNCILMAN COKINOS : Well, can I ask you to withdraw it? COUNCILMAN LEE : You don' t have to, I just said that I would. COUNCILMAN BRUMLEY: I withdraw the second. MAYOR MEYERS: The second' s withdrawn and I don' t think we need a motion. we need no action . We' re dealing here in good faith. MR. ROGERS: Thank you, very much. MAYOR MEYERS: Thank you. COUNCILMAN LEE: Today is the 21st, that meaning on July 21st MAYOR MEYERS : . . . 21st or thereabouts . . . COUNCILMAN BRUMLEY: It' ll come back on . . . . . . MS . COCKRELL: Well , I think . . . let me clarify something and I . . . . . . EXCERPT FROM REGULAR CITY COUNCIL SESSION HELD JUNE 21 , 1988 Page 37 MAYOR MEYERS : We are taking no action on that property and we would like to have it brought to our attention one month from today. MS . COCKRELL: If I 'm correct and Lane needs to help me out here. Legally, we would be required to begin our whole process all over again. . . MAYOR MEYERS: Then, do it . MS . COCKRELL: . . . as far as notification. Then, that ' s what we' ll do. I just wanted to clarify that. MAYOR MEYERS: In view of the offer to achieve what we want, I think we have to respect that, even though I am dismayed that Mr. Warchol chose to do nothing or say nothing. It' s not my business to understand it but: nevertheless, I think that ' s our ultimate goal . I appreciate everybody concurring. I hope everybody concurred. END OF EXCERPT.