Transcript: Special Council Meeting - Violations of the Dangerous Building Ordinance (VDBO)

Fred A. Neil

and seconded. Uh, what is the pleasure of council? All in favor, please say aye.

Council Members

Aye.

Fred A. Neil

Are there any opposed? The agenda is adopted, and with that, I turn the meeting over to the Chief of Code Inspections, Mr. Eddie Kopp. Mr. Kopp, it's front for you.

the Chief

Good evening. Uh, my name is Eddie Kopp. I'm the Chief Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Dover. Tonight, um, we're here to discuss the violation of Dangerous Building Ordinance for four properties. Uh, the first property is going to be 29 South New Street. Before I uh, before I begin, just just for the record, all properties have been uh duly notified in accordance with code and law um by first-class mail, certified mail, and physically posted on the property. And we can start our PowerPoint.

Unknown Speaker

There we go.

the Chief

Yep. Perfect. All right, you can go to the next slide.

the Chief

So for 29 South New Street, it was originally condemned June 11th, 2024, as unfit for human occupancy. Letter of intent was sent September 3rd of this year. Notice of public hearing was sent and posted October 24th of this year. No active utilities since June 11th, 2024. There are no active permits on file, and no repairs have been made to the structure since the condemnation. Um, there's an active building case since May 6th of 2024. The property has remained unresolved violations since 2023. Uh, so there was ongoing cases on here. It just resulted in a condemnation on June 11th of 2024, but the uh violations have been on- ongoing. Next slide.

the Chief

Outstanding fees for this property is $52,000 in code enforcement fines and taxes um outstanding 511.14. Um, I did speak with the owner just previous to this meeting. He said the property is under contract for sale uh with a nonprofit organization, but just to remind you, uh that does not take away the dangerous building um concerns for the property. Regardless who the owner is, the property is still considered dangerous building in accordance with code. Next slide.

the Chief

Um, under article uh our Dangerous Building article section 22-371, it meets the definitions um of unfit for habitation, light, air, and sanitation, emergency escapes, general welfare, code violations, unoccupied buildings, and incomplete buildings. So these are all definitions in accordance with our current code um that establishes what is a dangerous building. Next slide.

the Chief

These are the other outstanding violations. These are from the International Property Maintenance Code and the violations that are currently outstanding within the property. Um, general closing of vacant structures, inter- or interior surfaces, stairs and walking surfaces, doors, uh general, which is under the mechanical section of it, uh 604 is under the electrical for facilities required, it's because it doesn't have electric. Uh, the uh the 305.1 general is just general maintenance of the property, weeds, smoke alarms, permit required, and residential occupancies are the violations. Next slide.

the Chief

In here, I've incorporated the entire um Dangerous Building Ordinance for review.

Eddie Kopp

anybody has any questions on any of these slides with the dangerous buildings, I'll be happy to answer them. I just want to include the code into the PowerPoint that way everybody was um full transparency.

Fred A. Neil

Questions from Council? Yes, Mr. Councilman Rocha.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Uh thank you Council President. Um good evening Eddie. I I just wanted to, or Mr. Kopp, I'm sorry. Um could you point out exactly what was witnessed or what you saw that that's condemnable in this case?

Eddie Kopp

Yeah, so there's going to be some pictures moving up. Um I just included the the ordinance here that way if you guys had any questions on it, we could go um through them and then we'll view the pictures as well.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Okay. I yield. Thank you.

Eddie Kopp

All right. So if you If If anyone has any questions on the ordinance, just stop as I go on for one.

Fred A. Neil

Any other questions? I have a question in terms of of the building being sold. If it is condemned and it's sold, how long does the new owner have to rectify this or to take this building down?

Eddie Kopp

It would So, um it would be whatever is established here tonight. So if you say, um the building must be down by December 22nd, 2025, it's the responsibility of the current owner to relinquish any orders, whether it's condemnation, whether it's dangerous building, whether it's a demolition order. It's their responsibility to exchange that to the new owner. So, regardless if it goes to a new owner or not, that demolition order remains in effect.

Fred A. Neil

Thank you. Uh is there anyone here to speak on behalf of uh 29 South New Street that it should not be

Eddie Kopp

Well, I still have some pictures to go through if I If I could just complete the the rest of of it. Can you go back a slide or two? Uh one more. All right, go forward one. Sorry. Right there. So reco- recommendation is declare the the building and all accessory structures on the property um dangerous. The reason why it says all accessory structures is there is a illegal fence that was built on the property. Um to this day, I just verified uh five minutes prior to the meeting, the fence has not obtained a permit. Uh so that would be included in the demolition order. Uh so what I'm asking for is to order the building, all accessory structures be demolished before December 22nd, 2025 by the owner, equitable owner, at their own risk. In the event it is not done, to order the code official to cause the demolition of the building, the accessory structures, if not completed by the owner within 10 days of the date established, which will be December 22nd, 2025. And then order the City Manager, with the assistance of the City Solicitor, um to seek lien, suit, whatever the case may be, to uh recoup all costs associated with the demolition. Um that would include that would include asbestos abatement, city contracted services, and then the actual cost of demolition. Next slide? All right, so here's the Here's the pictures, I'll explain all of them. This is the condemnation um that happened back in June. Uh it was condemned by the Fire Marshal's office due to an electrical safety issue. Next slide. This is what

City Staff

the property looks looked like back in July of 25- er, July 29th of 25. Um, this is an ongoing issue, so you'll see progression with the photos. Next slide. That's what the backyard looked like. This- now these- this has since been rectified, but that's what we encountered um back in July 25. Next slide.

City Staff

That's the fence. Um, if you take note on that tree growing through the fence, um the fence was built around that tree. So, that fence was not permitted, um and, to date, there has been no application for a permit for this fence. Next slide.

City Staff

Uh, conditions of the property. The house has been utterly shot with paintballs. I guess they thought it would be a good idea to shoot it. There's There's a couple pictures of that. Next slide. Um, the house The siding's been damaged with paintballs. Next slide.

City Staff

Uh, if you look right over to the right, you'll see a mailbox. Um, in talking with the citizens down there that hang out in the area, it says, "In and out." So, that was an in-and-out box for drug activity. And they would put stuff in this mailbox down there, and this is based off of talking to uh the people down in the area. Next slide.

City Staff

Just some exterior photos of it. Next slide.

City Staff

And here we Here we go inside. Um, that floor It's hard to explain, um, or it's hard to see in a picture, but the floor's very weak. Uh, next slide.

City Staff

Again, same thing. That's condition of the inside with the floor. Next slide.

City Staff

Uh, that substance sitting there on the counter, we believe to be is urine.

City Staff

And then you can see just the condition of the property. You see the foam over there on the sink. That's not in accordance with code by any means. Uh, next slide.

City Staff

So, this is on the front of the property. Uh, when we went there to secure it, because we've had to go back there and secure it um on quite a few times, we found this. So, this was a great little spot right on the front that abuts the street. They would pop the window, put their needles up there, and then close the windows, like their little safe haven to hide stuff. And this is right on the front of the building. Next slide.

City Staff

More pictures of the floor. That floor right there was super weak um and almost almost collapsing. Next slide.

City Staff

That was in the front of the property right where we found the um the needles at. So, somebody was sleeping there.

City Staff

All right. And that concludes it. I probably have a couple hundred pictures for these um for this property. I just included uh some of the pictures just to give you an idea or understanding, but if you did need more pictures, I could provide them. But that concludes for 29 South New Street. And if somebody's here to speak, I can step aside.

Fred A. Neil

Thank you. Uh would you like to uh speak in favor of keeping this building and not demolishing it?

the executive

Good evening.

Fred A. Neil

Good evening.

the executive

My name is—

Fred A. Neil

May have your name and address, please.

the executive

Yeah, my name is Apostle Locke. I'm the executive director of House of Prayer and also owner of the property that he's making mention of. Now, uh the pictures that he have shown you are pictures of the property after no one was living there. The building has been uh vacant since June.

Property Owner

I was notified that there was an electrical problem with the wiring entering coming from the meter going into the house. And so my instruction was to the tenant to call the fire department. Fire department came out and, um, disconnect the power, whatever, so the building itself wouldn't wouldn't burn down. And, um, so the building has been vacant since June.

Property Owner

Now, uh, as he showed paintball, window bursts, uh, siding with holes in it, he showed you where homeless people had uh their property on the side, he showed you where homeless people had broken into the building and were using it for their own purpose. Now, calls are made to the city police department concerning those things. Now, nothing has been done about it.

Property Owner

Now, uh, when you talk about the building itself being unsafe, people were shooting in the building while people were living in it. The building wasn't shooting, but the drug activity in front of the building made it unsafe for the tenants to be in it. When there was no fence, people were moving from Governor to New, walking across the property.

Property Owner

Now he showed you a fence, [cough] I had that fence constructed that way. Um, if you had a lot of concern about, if you had caused the traffic to cease, then I would not have had the fence put up. Now, you he they they were complaining about uh people being there. Yeah, so I had the fence, I had the fence uh I had the fence put up and he complained about the way the fence was put up. Well, one thing about it, I had it constructed that way.

Property Owner

You say the police run after drug dealers, so I so I needed the fence to be high enough so they couldn't jump over it, but I needed it to be low enough so they couldn't go under it. Now they uh, since you know so much about uh the drug dealers there then, then you know that the the drug dealers are that are actually doing it weighs over 240 to 50 lb. They are not crawling under in through no 18-in hole under a fence. And uh

Property Owner

and so I had the fence intentionally constructed that way cause I didn't want them jumping over it and neither did I want them to have access to crawl under it. The only individual that would crawl under the fence had to be the small homeless people, which we had a problem with. You went in the building, you took picture of what was going on in the building, but you didn't do take any kind of steps to make sure that the building itself wasn't wasn't being trespassed.

Property Owner

So, uh, and in June, when when we had the electrical problem, yes, the family that was there wasn't the best family to to live in the building. I mean, I had a dog house on the back, homeless people were living in the dog--

Public Commenter

whole house. Uh right on the back of the property they had put up their own little homeless city.

Public Commenter

So now if if what what I'm saying is that you can be so uh forceful with tearing the whole house down, but not remove some tents that is also in violation and it's and also danger for the property itself.

Public Commenter

Now, uh he he showed some picture of of all of the debris that was behind 29. That debris was not 29 debris. But I did pay a contractor $1,500 to clean it up because I had all intention of putting that fence up without a permit that that he were making mention of.

Public Commenter

Now, uh on here for the articles, there is only one article on this page that that that actually fits the criteria for 29, and that's Article 6, 12, because the building has been unoccupied for more than, let's see, June, July, August, September, has been unoccupied for uh three months.

Public Commenter

So all these other things that is on here has nothing to do with the uh the the danger of the building as far as the structure.

Public Commenter

Now he showed the interior, uh the flooring that was on the interior. Prior to that there was carpet on it. But because the lady had dogs in the house, I strip all the carpet up off the house, and yes, the floor underneath the carpet was is not in the best condition. But since I had no intention of keeping the building, I had no intention of spending any more money on it.

Public Commenter

And so as far as the building being dangerous uh to the public, the danger to the public uh is created by individuals that choose to camp out on the sidewalk, individuals that choose to camp out on the sidewalk in front of the building, and also crawl in front of not only 29, but also the houses that are on the opposite side of the street.

Public Commenter

And so the paintball thing, we went to the police department in reference to that. They came out and they took pictures of it and uh and etcetera. Not only did was the paintball thing a problem for for me at 29, they just had freewill shooting paintballs on people house.

Public Commenter

Now, uh what I what I did now it's not as much going on there now because I organized my own security team. And those individuals were were carrying their weapon because they're because they uh they are registered. So I organized my own security team in order to maintain uh some decency for the housing that we have on New Street.

Public Commenter

Now he he he has uh a lot of the pictures that he can show, because when when uh he came when they when the code enforcement came down to do an inspection on the house, they did in-

Property Owner

inspection on the exterior. Now, when the one that they did in May, May of '25, what we did was, because I had not made a decision to sell the property, we corrected those. So if you have a picture of when the when the code was violated, you should also show pictures when it was corrected.

Property Owner

See, so we corrected those pictures, you- corrected those offenses, like I said, because I was anticipating on keeping the property. But since we have decided that we no longer want to keep that property and another property, no, we have not done any uh improvement on it, because Neighborhood Good going to tear the property down.

Property Owner

When we sold the property to them, their inspector came out, their uh individual that works along with them came out, and a decision was made that the property is going to be torn down, and they are going to build more efficient homes on that on that property, as they are doing up and down New Street.

Property Owner

And so, uh I'm not here to try and save the property. But what I am here, uh my concern is, I think, and I feel, unfair uh treatment concerning- So if it's if if I feel that an unfair treatment for what for for property of mine, I'm sure that there's unfair treatment at other properties also.

Property Owner

Now, uh he made emphasis about the fence, the way it was around the tree. Why would I pay uh 15 to $1,800 to have a tree removed when I'm no longer going to own the property? The fence was put there to keep people from having free access to the property. That's primarily the reason the fence was put there,

Property Owner

and to stop people from walking across from Governor through the property to New Street. And so we constructed the fence in a way whereas we could alleviate some of the traffic that was coming from Governor across to New Street.

Property Owner

And so, uh if a fence put up without a permit is an ascent- is to for him to uh deem the property as being unsafe or unfit, you know, it has nothing to do with the structure of the house in the first place.

Property Owner

And so they did complain about the way the f- the fence was attached to to the house. Well, I I I explained to them it was intentionally done because if there was that much space in between a pole and the house, they were simply going to go through it. So the whole idea of construction of the fence was to alleviate trespassing. Now, uh you say, why would it have to be done? Cuz police had been notified about trespassing. And so what we did at that time to buy time was to do what we have done. Now now uh I mean, like, you want to tear the property down, you tear the property down, but I'm not paying $0.01 towards uh demolition. See, I'll sue the city before I do that. Now, I showed him the agreement that had been made between

Public Commenter

House of Pride and NCALL. And and and the agreement is they are buying the property. They have already informed me, I'm sure they've informed the City as well, they have no intention of refurbishing the property, restoring the property.

Public Commenter

They are only going to tear the property down as they have done with other property that we have sold to them and build new houses on New Street.

Public Commenter

Now, this is the problem that I'm having because I'm seeing the same behavior being exhibit uh there interfering with other houses. Now, I do I do housing and I and and and I do housing for men. I have 10 men.

Public Commenter

Those men were homeless. Those and and one of the guys uh in the house is handicapped. And when when when uh there is

Public Commenter

unattended-to behavior on the street that interfere with the property that we have or where men are are living, that is not a part of what goes on on the outside of the house.

Public Commenter

Now, it doesn't take a rocket science to see that. They have made a path from the corner of New Street around the back of one of the property that that I have. Now, why would a path be there? They put their drugs on the property,

Public Commenter

and uh and when someone come up to buy, they go on they go they trespass to get it and to sell it. See? And so when you say that the house is a nuisance, this nuisance is on the outside of the house,

Public Commenter

even though I have no intention of saving it and anyway. Uh and so so that's the primary thing. I mean, you yeah, you present a good narrative of a situation, but without reality to it.

Public Commenter

You can make a situation seem whatever way you want it to seem, but the reality of it is you need to come on site to see. And to and to have all the details as to why you project a picture on a screen

Public Commenter

and and, you know, and and and and and give your narrative of it when it has nothing to do actually with the uh the uh safety of the house. So what I'm saying to this special council uh meeting here tonight,

Public Commenter

I don't care if you want to tear the house down, but I do care if I get the money that I've that I'm selling the house for. And uh you can put any kind of of a deadline on when the house has to be torn down.

Public Commenter

Well, I don't see where it makes sense for you to decide tonight that a house need to be torn down by the 22nd when the when the uh the new when the new owners get it, when they're going to tear the house down anyway. See? And so uh

Public Commenter

that's pretty much what I what my my uh my voice is on it. I I do want to uh I have a concern. I have a major concern, see, about uh the attitude of the code enforcer when you explain to them exactly what is going on.

Public Commenter

And uh so you're not going to make a decision to solve the problem,

Public Commenter

uh to help with the problem, then uh I don't think that you should be uh given that opportunity to to make a final decision or conclusion about it. So I'm glad that I I am here tonight. Now,

Public Commenter

I pay taxes. We're a nonprofit organization, but we still pay the city taxes. At one time the organization was exempted from paying city tax, but I intentionally pay the city taxes because I want the city protection. Now, uh so I'm entitled to everything that the that the city is supposed to do for a citizen. And when I'm not receiving that, I'm disturbed by that.

Public Commenter

Because there should not have been any time that anybody would have would have had the liberty to shoot glasses, shoot the windows out of a house, uh shoot holes in the siding of a house because they wanted to have fun with a paint gun. But they did it. And then there are other houses that they did the same thing to.

Public Commenter

And so, uh and there again, when we reported it, nothing were done. Were done concerning it. But at the same time he can come tonight and complain about the condition of the house. See,

Public Commenter

and so, um I mean, like if if you have some other ulterior motive as to why you want to tear the house down and I understood that you say you'll tear the house down, then the owner will be responsible for the for the demolishing of the house and whatever else come along with it. Well, what I'm saying to you tonight, before I would have even allowed that, I would sue the city.

Public Commenter

Because there's He did an exterior inspection. He did not do an interior inspection to come to these conclusions. Only after there was no one in the house, the house being abandoned, homeless people have taken up residence in the house. And so the, a lot of the destruction that he's making mention of wasn't done by the tenant that was in the house. Were done by the the homeless people after the house was vacant. See,

Public Commenter

and and uh the other thing I want to say uh is that the city fined us. We paid the fine. I should not have been fined $500 or whatever the amount of money was because of not attending to what the uh the code violation. See, so that was money that we that we took out of the organization to pay because of some other things that were going on that we shouldn't never been fined for in the first place. And so, uh

Public Commenter

I'm not I'm not a landlord. I'm a uh I'm a uh director of a uh a abuse of a substance abuse program that that that provides space for men who is in transition. Uh we're a nonprofit organization. I don't get paid. None of the people that work with me get paid. We simply do the service for people.

Property Owner

And in doing a service for the people, we are doing a service for the city, because the 10 mens that are in those houses were 10 homeless men. And so we we take them in, we provide a place for them in a in a in a uh uh single-family dwelling setting, and we help them to find employment to move on. And so I don't I don't I don't feel that I need to be penalized for helping.

Fred A. Neil

Um thank you very much for coming, number one. Number two,

Fred A. Neil

Councilman Rocha and I serve on an appeals panel. I wish, when you had been cited, that you would've come before us.

Fred A. Neil

I thank you for what you're doing. We know what the problems are. Sometimes our hands are literally uh handcuffed to not be able to do what we would like very much to do.

Fred A. Neil

But thank you for what you do. We appreciate it. Should something come up with one of your other properties, and you get a uh notification, please, please appeal. Thank you. Thank you.

Fred A. Neil

Mr. Scott, is any is there anyone else who is in a favor to hold or oppose?

Julia M. Pillsbury

Dr. Pillsbury has her hand up.

Fred A. Neil

Dr. Pillsbury? Yes.

Julia M. Pillsbury

This is for the gentleman. Um do you have a signed bill of sale with um Neighborhood-

Property Owner

Uh Neighborhood is in the process of of moving it through the closing uh with the attorney's office here in in Dover. The problem that we are having right now here, other than that the property would've been sold, um

Property Owner

Bank of America had a lien put on it back in 1999, and they did not release it, and there's no record of it. So we're in the process of getting the record. We had to do that with 55 and 57 as well. I don't know what happened with Bank of America, they they didn't give a release for the lien. But that's where we are now. We're in the process of communicating with individuals to get that done.

Julia M. Pillsbury

And when do you anticipate that being completed?

Property Owner

Well, they have told me that they have some other steps that they could take, so I'm waiting on them, honestly. So I'm assuming They had said that it would be done in 3 days. We were supposed to have uh closed on the 10th, I believe. But they have said that it would be within 3 days that they have some other avenues that they could take in order to expedite the time to move to to close.

Julia M. Pillsbury

So you currently do not have a bill of sale, and you have no closing date set up. Is that correct?

Property Owner

That's correct.

Julia M. Pillsbury

So why don't you have a bill of sale saying that you're going an intention to sell? That's what I don't understand.

Property Owner

I do have that. Sorry, I didn't present it.

Property Owner

Do you want Do you want to look at it, or do I need to get-

Julia M. Pillsbury

Well, I just-

Fred A. Neil

When we're finished, can we have the uh solicitor take a look at it? Yes.

Julia M. Pillsbury

First thing it says "unimproved land."

Fred A. Neil

As I understand it, and, Mr. Kopp, you can correct me if I'm I'm wrong, that at the time that the sale takes place, if the demolition is in place, then it becomes the uh that the buyer will then either come to us and tell us what they're going to do and they will take the building down. Is that my understanding?

Jason Kopp

Correct. And working with these organizations, as I have in the past, we've done this very thing in the past. Um we're flexible with the timeline. If they come to us, "Oh hey, we bought this property, we're going to demolish it ourselves," I'm fine with that. That puts more money back in our budget. But the fact um the fact remains is this building has been for sale for over a year now. It's been questionable. I believe that failure to make a decision on this building tonight could put the city at risk because this is not a confirmed sale. This is a letter of intent. So the property is not sold to Habitat. There There is no final bill of sale. This could be backed out at any time. Um and the concern is if we delay and this property continues to um become a nuisance,

Jason Kopp

then we're just wasting our time here tonight and and not rectifying the issue. My job as the code official is to protect everyone in the city, and I understand this is one house, but I have to look at the overall city. I have to look at the people and the citizens of the city and what I feel is in best in accordance with code. Um I do want to comment, too, about the police. The police have been out there. Code Enforcement got involved in this case because the police called us. They have been out there numerous times, and we have met them out there numerous times, at least 20 times since July, and every single time we go out there, we find people inside the building. The doors are unlocked. People are inside hanging out, and they say, "Oh hey, I spoke with Bishop Lott, and he said we can be here." Now, whether that's true or not, that's beside the point, but there are people constantly going inside this house even after it's been vacant. It's condemned. Nobody should be in there for any reason except to make repairs, but they're continuously going in there um clear up to my latest inspection in October.

Fred A. Neil

Mr. Solicitor, any comment?

City Solicitor

Sir, the only thing I noted was that according to this document, the closing was to take place on October 31st.

Bishop Wayne Lott

Yes.

City Solicitor

Can can Are you able to explain at the podium why the closing didn't take place and whether there's a new date? Because if there's no new date in the contract, um I'm not sure this is an enforceable contract anymore.

Bishop Wayne Lott

The reason it it didn't happen on the 31st, it could have happened on 29, but they was waiting to get all the documentation to do the closing on both of the houses at the same time. So the problem was with 16.

Bishop Wayne Lott

Now, uh I was at the attorney office because they told me they was going to be done on the 10th. I was at the attorney office on the 10th. The attorney informed me that they was in the process of of getting the information that was needed, and she told me at that time it might would have been done within 3 days.

Marion Lott

So of course that was last week. And so nothing has taken place as of now.

Marion Lott

Um, so I don't have a a closing date, I wish I did. But they're in the process of getting one.

Marion Lott

But what I do know is, you can make whatever decision you want to make tonight, but what I do know is that that they're they're going to give me a closing date. There's no backing out of anything. It's been finalized that we are getting that we are are getting rid of those property, and those property will be sold. If they call me tomorrow and give me a closing date, those property will be sold.

Marion Lott

Now, uh, I'm trying to to wrap my mind around what is unsafe when it comes to the house sitting there. No one is in it. And if they'll trespass, a trespasser can be arrested.

Marion Lott

So I'm trying The house is not falling down on anyone. Um, there again the article that he's that he's cited, only one applies to the situation. So, uh, so when you're deeming it that as being a mesa threat to citizen, the only threat that we're having with it is is people going in it.

Marion Lott

Yeah, and he said they've gone in several time and people was in it. Well, you could've checked the doors. The doors have been broken into. They don't have a key to get in and out of the building. I was down there, um, last week. And someone when when, uh, NCALL Neighborhood Good informed me they saw that one of the doors, so when I goes down, the door had been broken into. And so, uh, no one has access to the building except by violating it or committing some trespassing, uh, crime with it.

Marion Lott

But to answer your question, I don't have a date as to, uh, closing. I'm anticipating on one real close because NCALL has been working on it. The other alternative that they had given me is that they can do the closing on 30, on 29, and, um, and put the remainder of the money in escrow until we resolve the the selling of the other property.

Nicholas Rodriguez

And and I didn't mean to give you legal advice. I just meant to suggest to you that that document with an October 31 closing date is not enforceable, and and and it could be strongly argued that you don't have a contract for the sale of that property.

Marion Lott

I understand that, and thank you.

Roy Sudler, Jr.

Councilman Rocha.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Yeah. Um, thank you, um, Council President.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Um, so I kind of hear You know, you've covered a lot, right, Bishop Lott?

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

And and, uh, and I'm I'm one way or another, whatever we decide tonight, NCALL Neighborhood Partners is probably going to end up with this property.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

However, right now it's in the possession of the House of Pride, and regardless of the condition of it, it's an it's

Roy Sudler, Jr.

an asset.

Roy Sudler, Jr.

So, I just want us to think about, and I know that, you know, this is just things that's running through my head right now, as an asset, if NeighborGood buys the property, purchases the property from House of Pride, they get the money to put back into the community for the community service in their nonprofit that they're working with. If we tear down the building and put a lien on it, that's going to have an adverse effect. So I I just wanted to point that out,

Roy Sudler, Jr.

and I'm I don't know the right answer right now. Um, and then as far as the safety goes, there's multiple reasons why the city um can view what we just saw as a safety issue.

Roy Sudler, Jr.

You know, you you know it's vacant, um people are a liability that's breaking in the house, um there's drug paraphernalia, you know, the and then the floors are weak. There's there's multiple things that you know, Mr. Kopp has pointed out that we can identify as a safety violation. So, although you know, from your standpoint, the building is not going to come down, uh you know, just the breaking and entering alone is still a safety issue. So, I I wanted to make sure you understood that. We we get that part.

Roy Sudler, Jr.

The reasons why we're here is because it's vacant, and even if it was a beautiful piece of property, fixed up, and it's vacant, we still have to be concerned about individuals breaking in, no matter what it looks like. So that's that's why we're here to address it. Is it condemned because of uh the people going in? Maybe not. Maybe the soft floors, which is an indication of termites, most likely, that might be it. If somebody's walking through there and they if it has a basement and they fall through, that that plywood going into the floor, I mean into the basement, you know, that though those types of situations can occur.

Roy Sudler, Jr.

And being the fact that NeighborGood Partners sent somebody in there and inspected it, and said it was just tear it down, is another indication that what Mr. Kopp had pointed out as far as condemnation is correct from from my purview. But what I'm trying to figure out is how we can navigate it so that you can recoup uh a benefit of the asset for the House of Pride. That's That's what's up in the air right now. How can NeighborGood buy the property from you

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

versus us tearing it down, it goes to sheriff's sale, and neighbor buying it at the sheriff's sale, or Habitat getting a hold of it. That that's what I'm trying to figure out if we can do that in this discussion. That With that said, I I yield.

Fred A. Neil

Councilman Lewis.

Brian E. Lewis

Actually, uh, Mr. Rocha brings up a good point with respect to the legal ramifications uh with a potential buyer, whether it be Neighborhood Partners or uh Habitat, uh if uh there's a lien put on that property, uh how are they going to take possession and move forward? Um Most of my questions have been answered with regard to um a potential uh sale of the property and uh the legal stance, uh but I have some questions for uh for Mr. Kopp, if you don't mind stepping up to the podium. And these are technical questions. Um you had indicated, Mr. Kopp, that uh the last inspection was in October?

Edward Kopp

Right, that last, the last um physical inspection. So um I went by there today to ensure the conditions were still there as well.

Brian E. Lewis

Okay, that's what I wanted to know. So uh when were these photos taken that you presented?

Edward Kopp

Um It started back in July. It goes on um from July till current.

Brian E. Lewis

Uh and as of this date, uh again, you said you were there uh last month, October, um has there any uh to your to your um I guess uh to your expertise, has there been any improvements uh made to this property?

Edward Kopp

No, the only The only improvement I would say was made would be the illegal fence, um which I did inform uh Bishop Lott that he did need a permit. Back July 31st, I looked at my notes while I was sitting there, July 31st when I met out met him on-site with Dover Police, which is on body cam, um he was informed he needed a fence permit prior to putting up a fence. A week later, the fence is erected. It's well over the six feet, which is not in accordance with code. So, even if he did have a permit, the fence is illegal because it's not in accordance with code. I understand the intent behind the illegal activity, but we can't bend code just because of illegal activity. We all have to comply with the code. So, regardless, the fence, um even if a permit was obtained, that fence would have to be torn down. But that's the only improvement made to the property.

Brian E. Lewis

Understood. Uh and I don't know if you could uh answer this question, but uh again, it goes back to uh legalities. Uh if, in fact, um the current owner was instructed to uh demolish this property um by next week, and uh in between that timeframe uh the buyer uh takes possession or buys that property, uh is the uh current owner still responsible for demolishing it, or uh where does that fall under?

Edward Kopp

So, if the If the If it's sold tomorrow, right? So say we do a demolition order today and the new owner um buys it tomorrow, they take responsibility of the demolition order. It's It's the current owner's responsibility to expose that to the new

Jason Kopp

owner, but they're responsible, they're the new owner. So they're the— they're the ones responsible. The demolition order is against the property, not the owner. So, and, and just in past experience, we've had this happen to where we have started the demolition process and we're halfway through, and a non-profit will jump in. They'll pay the bill, not saying that's going to happen here, this is just my previous experience. They'll pay the bill of what we've already spent, and then just take it on from there. So, it, it all depends. I don't want to say it's going to go one way or another, but that's my experience dealing with dangerous buildings with the non-profits.

Brian E. Lewis

And another question, if you don't mind answering, how much does it cost the city to demolish one of these properties?

Jason Kopp

It, it ranges anywhere between I'd say 10 and $50,000, it all depends. What determines that is how much asbestos is in there. Demolition is cheap. It's the asbestos remediation on the house that tends to be costly. When it comes down to the inspections and the actual remediation of the asbestos, that's where it gets costly. So it's it's hard to put a hard number on it, especially at a meeting like this, until we go out and bid everything. The only way to bid it is it's a very invasive inspection, which is why we declare it dangerous, get the order first, because they actually have to go in there, they have to break walls, they have to break floors. There's a lot they have to do to inspect for asbestos, and without having that demolition order, it's almost impossible to to quote that prior to.

Brian E. Lewis

And another question is, I mean, this is taxpayer dollar that we're utilizing, correct?

Jason Kopp

That's correct.

Brian E. Lewis

And if the owner of the property declines to pay the demolition fee, how do we recoup that? Do we have to bring it to a superior court?

Jason Kopp

Yeah, so that's where in in here it says the city manager and the city solicitor will will pursue that via lien and whatever court action is required. So I turn everything over, every cost, I turn it all over to be billed, and then it goes from there.

Brian E. Lewis

Okay, understood. I think that's all I have at this time. Appreciate it.

Fred A. Neil

Thank you. Mr. Mayor?

Robin R. Christiansen

I yield to Councilman Rocha.

Fred A. Neil

Councilman Rocha.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for yielding to me. Before you go, Mr. Kopp, let's say we move forward with the demolition, but Bishop Lott ends up selling to NeighborGood Partners, where does it stop? Like does the— I know that the demolition is in progress, but where, once the transition of sale goes, where does it say, "Okay, you know, NeighborGood said they was going to tear it down." What's the timeline between that?

Eddie Kopp

about the sale of the property. It's about the the danger of the building existing. So, my responsibility is to get the building down. It It It poses a danger. It is a threat to the public, um, so

Jason Kopp

So, um, good question. So say NeighborGood, that's why we have this date. So say NeighborGood says they're going to tear it down, and then they never tear it down. That's where we step in. Because at the end of the day, this isn't about— The The sale of the property is civil. This isn't—

Eddie Kopp

in the event it sells to NCALL tomorrow, they have till the 22nd to demolish it. If they don't demolish it, we will start that process to to mitigate the threat, um, to the the public. Now,

Eddie Kopp

90% of the time dealing with them, um, they're pretty fast. They will come in. They'll get a demo permit. They'll get a contractor, um, I've always been flexible with them. So, if we have a demolition order for the 22nd, um,

Eddie Kopp

as long as they're making good faith effort They're getting their demolition order, they're they got their permit. Hey, you're showing good faith effort, you've got me a date. It's going to be down on this date, because even with us, December 22nd starts the process. So, just to explain that process,

Eddie Kopp

December 22nd will be the date it has to be repaired or demolished by. So, on December 22nd, if it's not done, um, and you order this building to be demolished, I have to send a 10-day notice to vacate, right? So, that adds 10 days to this. So, we're now we're in January. The 10-day notice to vacate, um, basically states that anything belonging in the house has to be removed because it then it becomes an active demolition site after that. Um, there's no more access to the property after them 10 days. So, that's another certified mail, posted on the property, so on and so forth. After that 10 days, that's when I start with the asbestos

Eddie Kopp

inspection and abatement. Um, that could take up to 30 days. Um, and then, we finally get into demolition. And that's why it seems fast with the 22nd to 30 days,

Eddie Kopp

but it's really a lengthy process. There's several steps that have to take place, um, to be in compliant with the demolition. You can't get a demolition permit until you have your asbestos. It's got to be remediated. It's got to be inspected. So, it does take time and that's why Habitat, or or whoever can jump in there. Now, as far as the 22nd date, if the owner decides he wants to demolish it, he starts taking steps on there. He gets his asbestos, gets his demolition permit, great.

Eddie Kopp

Like as long as as long as that process is moving and, um, continuing, we'll we'll work with them. Um, but if that process is not started by December 22nd or it stops, that's where we can come in and finish finish the, um, finish the job basically, and remove the building to prevent the life-safety issue.

Roy Sudler, Jr.

And And up until that point uh Yeah. She's waving over there, but uh I still got another question. Yeah.

Roy Sudler, Jr.

Um And I That's why kind of paused, too, so that he could know you wanted You had a question as well. But uh uh uh also, within that time frame, if NCALL comes in and they make the purchase,

Eddie Kopp

going to happen, um, and and it all depends on the logistics, I guess, with that with that contract. So.

Andre M. Boggerty

Up until this point, this is my last question. Up until this point, has NeighborGood reached out to you to have a discussion on this particular property?

Eddie Kopp

They have not.

Andre M. Boggerty

Thank you. I yield, um, Mr. Neil, thank you.

Fred A. Neil

Thank you. Mr. Mayor, or will you yield to Councilwoman Hall?

Robin R. Christiansen

Yield to Councilwoman Hall.

Fred A. Neil

Councilwoman Hall.

Donyale M. Hall

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to um go a little deeper into um how that that fee ends up um being put on there. So, if say tonight we say, okay, yes, December 22nd, and you don't have a definitive hard number, and they are in the process of negotiating this sale, um at what point does it become How do you go about splitting up who pays what at that point? So say, um the transaction goes through, and you've already begun your 10 day, and then you've done your asbestos um inspection. Um I'm I'm assuming that um you have a contractor that does the asbestos. Um they come out and they say, 'Okay, we're going to give you this estimate for um giving uh uh our opinion on if this is asbestos or not.' There's a amount that's um come into play then. So, let's just say that's $2,000, okay? Um At some point during that process, the sale happens. So, now at this point, you would give that bill to Bishop Lott, and then it it halts it and maybe or it continues down that path if NeighborGood or Habitat or whoever the new owner comes in and says, 'We're going to finish tearing this down. Um You can stop here.' You then give them the ability to pick up where the process has terminated? And I guess the reason why I'm asking this is if you put a lien against the property for what's been spent, um you you don't have a full picture of what that lien looks like until you have completed this process of demolition. So, that that's where it kind of gets in the weeds for me is how how do you halt this process? And and my thinking and my recommendation at this point would be, you know, something along the lines of let's let's schedule this for you know, a 30 days or or 60 days to allow this sale to happen. At least that would put it on the books, and it wouldn't be in the middle of this lengthy process to get the demolition done.

Eddie Kopp

Well, you you brought up a great point, and the way demolition works, um all demolitions, it's not just one invoice, right? We're talking about several invoices. Now, when it comes to demolition, it's very sensitive to it's very sensitive uh for financials. So, it's not like a grass cutting to where we get the invoice 30 days later, we're paying it. All demolition expenses, the moment I get the invoice, it's processed, and it's billed because a lot of dangerous buildings do have the potential to sell. So, it's instant. Um, I send a spec—

City Staff

inspector out there, they give me a bill right away, I process it right away, it gets billed right away. Um, just because a lot of these dangerous buildings do sell midway through. So we bill it instantly, so it it goes the next day, it's already on the account, it's on there. Um, so regardless, so if I if I was to buy the property tomorrow, right, I would get a lien search. It's going to show on that lien search whatever has been spent to date. So, and that's what, I'm um when we're doing this, I'm not looking for the total cost of demolition, I'm looking for taxpayer dollars we have already spent. So, and that's the only thing that that is billed, that's the only thing that's charged, that's the only thing that's liened.

Donyale M. Hall

Thank you, I yield.

Fred A. Neil

Councilwoman Arndt.

Tricia K. Arndt

Thank you, Council President. Just a couple of questions, and thank you for providing the timeline and and the the details on the process, that's really helpful. Um, my question is,

Tricia K. Arndt

once a building has been condemned, whose responsibility is it to secure the property against trespass? Is it the property owner or the city?

City Staff

It's the it's the property owner. Um, it's the property owner's responsibility to ensure that it's secured. The only time the city secures the property is when it becomes a nuisance. Um, then we hire somebody out there to uh secure it, which costs anywhere between $2,000 to $5,000.

City Staff

Um, so it's it's very expensive. We do that at um worst-case scenario. Either the property owner is absent or the property owner is not compliant. Um, this property, I understand the financial situation, we probably should have had boarded because the continuous unlawful entry into it. Um, but Mr. Blot, in in speaking with him, he ensured me he would keep it secured. So, uh, but it is the owner's responsibility at all times, and it's actually a citeable offense to find your building unsecure.

Tricia K. Arndt

Okay. Thank you. I yield.

Fred A. Neil

Councilman Lewis.

Brian E. Lewis

At what point do you declare a property unsafe?

City Staff

So, anytime a property meets the dangerous building guidelines. So, whether that's a vacant building, an occupied building, if it falls under dangerous building category in accordance with Dover code of ordinance and the International Property Maintenance Code, we are obligated to issue that condemnation there on site. So, there there's um under definitions, it spells out all the parameters of a dangerous building, but if we see any of those parameters for a dangerous building, we must condemn it.

Brian E. Lewis

Okay, and to piggyback off Ms. Arndt's question with respect to safety, um uh why hasn't it been thought of to uh put a fence around the property? I mean, you can board up windows and doors, but you're still going to have possible uh vagrants and uh homeless people maybe try to get in. So, why don't they put a fence around the whole property since it's uh uh I guess uh warranted unsafe?

City Staff

So there is a current fence around the property. Um, there is a fence around majority of the property,

Eddie Kopp

property. It's it's not stopping. Now, if the city puts a property or if the city puts a fence up there, fences are very, very expensive um as we've seen. They're they're very expensive, and if we were to do it for his property, we would have to do it for the other 60 dangerous buildings within the city that are having the same issue. Um it's it's not cost-effective. It's not a good use of funds. Um it's

Brian E. Lewis

Even uh even even temporary fences uh that like construction sites use where you could post signs, you know, no trespassing, dangerous property? They're They're

Eddie Kopp

They're very expensive. Okay.

Brian E. Lewis

Okay.

Eddie Kopp

We we tried that. Um we actually used it down at 29 South New Street. We put a fence up because the uh the citizens in the area were affecting the demolition, so they were going on site while they were demolishing the building. We had to get the fence up, and we spent $10,000 for a fence for 2 months just to protect that site. It's not cheap.

Brian E. Lewis

So you leased it?

Eddie Kopp

Yes.

Brian E. Lewis

Okay.

Eddie Kopp

Yeah.

Brian E. Lewis

All right. No further questions.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Mr. Mayor?

Robin R. Christiansen

Is is that uh all the council's questions and concerns?

Roy Sudler, Jr.

Except mine.

Andre M. Boggerty

Bishop uh Apostle, first off, I appreciate uh what you and the service that you provide in in that area.

Andre M. Boggerty

Um Ed uh Mr. Kopp, could you tell me uh what the taxes and fees that are outstanding on this property?

Eddie Kopp

So on this particular property, uh their fines was $5,200, and the taxes are $511 and or yeah, $511.14.

Andre M. Boggerty

So they're still outstanding?

Eddie Kopp

They are still outstanding.

Andre M. Boggerty

So at any sale, they would be rolled into into the sale before the sale would go through?

Eddie Kopp

Correct.

Andre M. Boggerty

I yield to Councilman Rocha, and reserve the right to ask another question.

Robin R. Christiansen

Councilman Rocha.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Yes, uh so um I I just found out from our finance director or treasurer that the taxes are up-to-date. Uh I think the code fines are still outstanding, but the taxes are up-to-date as of to at this point right now.

Eddie Kopp

Okay.

Andre M. Boggerty

Mr. Mayor?

Robin R. Christiansen

Thank you, Mr. Rocha. Councilman Rocha.

Andre M. Boggerty

So, once again, make it clear to all of us that if we declare this building that it needs to be demolished, there's still wiggle room for whoever purchases it, the condemnation carries forward, and the instructions for them to tear it down go along with the sale to the next owner?

Eddie Kopp

That's correct.

Andre M. Boggerty

With no recourse against the present owner?

Eddie Kopp

Correct.

Andre M. Boggerty

Okay, I yield.

Robin R. Christiansen

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Anyone else want to speak in favor of not tearing down this building? Yes.

Eulinda Main

I actually do have a question um for

Robin R. Christiansen

Please come forward. You have been here, you know the name and address.

Eulinda Main

Eulinda Main, City of Dover. Um I did have a couple issues that I was listening to with code enforcement. Um this place being and mostly the properties that are

Public Commenter

up for now are considered dangerous places. Um, the reason why they're dangerous places is not just because of what's inside the building, but it's the trespassers, like this gentleman had put a fence around the back half to keep trespassers from going through the property, to kind of help the back end of being demolished or destroyed. But instead, the front half is yet unprotected from trespassers who want to break windows, climb in the in the buildings, inhabit it. So it is a actually an empty building being inhabited by people that don't own it, but yet can't be repaired by the gentleman, if he chose to, because it's just going to get demolished or destroyed by these trespassers again from breaking windows, breaking into doors, using it as housing, um drug use and everything else. It's the process isn't going to stop by, you know, placing code enforcement fines on something that someone's trying to at least preserve some of the property for a sale. And what would also be considered is if he is in the process of selling the property from Neighborhood Place, which everyone seems to not hear, Neighborhood Place is planning on purchasing it, maybe code enforcement and the gentleman should go to Neighborhood Place and actually put up an agreement of, okay, yes, we are in the process of doing this, that, and the other in order to confirm that this sale is actually going to go through at some point. If not, then, you know, we we move on from that point. But right now, the gentleman, like you said, has not has a closing date because there are issues that are causing this sale to go through. And at as buying a house and having, you know, things fall through at the last minute during closing, I I lost, you know, owning my own house until I bought this house, and no issues with anything happened. But in the and the point is, is if it's in the process of being sold, and there has to be paperwork documented, have the gentleman go back there and say, 'Look, I need paperwork saying that you guys are promising to buy this, to give me time in order to settle whatever differences need to be settled, and actually board up the place and secure it so that there isn't any more damage till it can be demolished, even though it's going to be demolished anyway.' But with these properties, no matter what, you can demolish them, homeless people are still going to find some way to go back to that empty lot till something is built there to forceful habit or put tents up. So, I mean, no matter what, if you don't contain it to being a safe property to purchase, it doesn't matter if the dwelling is there or isn't there, it's still going to cause a problem. Thank you.

Fred A. Neil

Thank you. Is there anyone who is in favor of demolishing the this piece of property? I see no hands, no one online...

Fred A. Neil

all has spoken. Basically, looking at this, the house is really not relevant. What's relevant is the piece of property that a new house is going to go on. Basically, a good house, a safe house, a well-built house for people who desperately need housing. The destruction of this property is typical of any empty building that's throughout the entire city. They're being destroyed from the inside out. I compare it to termites. There's people who cannot help themselves. These are people who cannot help themselves. They're desperate, and they'll do anything that they possibly can. That becomes a separate issue that the House of Pride basically is trying to get these people out of that depths of depression and the problems that they're having. In this case, it's I think it's fairly simple. The land that that house sits on is the most valuable thing. There is a value to it, can be sold. By taking this action now, you have 30 days for something to happen, to come to the city and let a code inspector know that there's action being taken, there really is going to be a closing, there's evidence that are there, and the code inspection team has been known to work with individuals and companies and organizations to be flexible in this. That's where we stand at this time. I'm going to call the question at this time. All in favor of the demolition of this building by the December 22nd? Motion?

Unknown Council Member

Motion and a second.

Fred A. Neil

We have a motion? We need a motion? We need a motion.

Julia M. Pillsbury

I I thought Yes. I'll make the motion.

Fred A. Neil

Motion is moved. Second?

Tricia K. Arndt

Second.

Fred A. Neil

And second by Councilwoman Arndt. The motion is to for demolition for the 22nd of December, December 22nd.

City Staff

If I could comment real quick. I believe your motion should be to repair or demolish. We don't want to remove the ability to repair. At the end of the day, we want compliance with the property. If it has to go to demolition, that's compliance, but I don't want to remove the opportunity. He could always repair the building, bring it up to code within the next 30 days and that would remediate it. So I just want to make sure repair is in the motion so we're not eliminating that.

Julia M. Pillsbury

This is Dr. Pillsbury, and I accept your language.

Fred A. Neil

Staff recommendation, right. Okay. Seconder, do you accept that?

Tricia K. Arndt

I agree. Thank you.

Justin Kopp

fine. Uh those are fees from 2013, so this building has had code violations since 2013, so it's accumulation um of neglect of compliance for the violations since not 2013, I'm sorry, 2023. Um I stand corrected. 2023, this property has been an issue. The condemnation happened this year, but it's been an ongoing issue, so those some of those fines are associated with um with previous cases that are still outstanding.

Brian E. Lewis

Copy that. I I yield, and I'm ready for the question.

Fred A. Neil

Please call the the the roll, please.

City Clerk

So the motion is recommending repair or demolition. It was made by Dr. Pillsbury and seconded by Mrs. Arndt. Mrs. Hall?

Donyale M. Hall

Yes.

City Clerk

Miss Hall, sorry. Dr. Pillsbury?

Julia M. Pillsbury

Yes.

City Clerk

Mrs. Arndt?

Tricia K. Arndt

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Rocha?

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Lewis?

Brian E. Lewis

Yes.

City Clerk

Council President Neil?

Fred A. Neil

Yes.

City Clerk

Okay. Unanimous.

Fred A. Neil

The motion has been passed unanimously.

Fred A. Neil

Next, we have the Green Street Queen Street property, 111 South Queen Street. Mr. Kopp.

Justin Kopp

All right, if you could go to slide 40.

City Clerk

Slide 40.

Justin Kopp

All right, so this property was condemned due to a fire on February 17th, 2025. Letter of intent September 3rd, 2025. Notice of public hearing on October 24th. There's been no active utilities since the fire, no active permits on file, and no permits have been obtained, and no repairs have been made to the property.

Justin Kopp

Next slide.

Justin Kopp

Code enforcement fines are $400. Other fees are $1,459. That does include a very extensive utility bill that's outstanding. Next slide.

Justin Kopp

Um these are the the violations. I think we can just go right to the pictures um for this one, to make it pretty easy for you guys. Let's see.

Justin Kopp

This is the building. So it caught fire. It is a substantial risk to the public. Go to next slide.

Justin Kopp

As you can see, the roof is burnt off. Next slide.

Justin Kopp

Structural collapse. Basically, the whole inside has been burnt. Next slide.

Justin Kopp

Next slide.

Justin Kopp

And you can go right through them.

Justin Kopp

Back there on that on that Bilco door back there, as you notice, there's some blankets. That's not from inside the house. Somebody was sleeping back there, taking shelter, which is very concerning because that house is not stable at all to even walk through. All my pictures I took of the interior are from a window because it's it's too unstable to even walk on to obtain evidence. Next slide.

Justin Kopp

And next slide.

Justin Kopp

So as you can see, again, the building is in ruins.

Mr. Cobb

it poses a public safety risk, and um my recommendation is for immediate demolition um of the building to protect the general public from any life safety concerns that could arise.

Fred A. Neil

Question?

Brian E. Lewis

My question is, uh has there been any communication with the property owner?

Mr. Cobb

We have tried to um communicate with the property owner. I have communicated with um the non-profit involved, and they're in litigation. Um, so that's beyond us. Uh my concern for this is the building being brought to a safe condition. So, I do know they have their own things going on, um, but that that doesn't um sway my my determination as a certified code official to to rectify the the violation here.

Brian E. Lewis

Yeah, I'm a little a little surprised because uh the the general procedure in a situation like this, in particular a fire, unless the property was uninsured, would be that the insurance company would take uh over and demolish that property. But uh at this point, I don't know if you know if uh the property was insured, but it's just kind of uh suspect.

Mr. Cobb

Yeah, so um from what I've known, I don't know if I can release in a public forum uh in my communications, but I don't want to comment on if there was or was not insurance. Um, but this property did catch fire back in February. Here we are in November, and it's still standing, so um I'll leave it at that.

Brian E. Lewis

Okay, no further questions. You pretty much uh made your case on that one.

Fred A. Neil

Mr. Mayor.

Robin R. Christiansen

Thank you, uh Mr. President. Mr. Cobb, do we still use the um the metric of 70% of a structure that's damaged needs to be demolished?

Mr. Cobb

Uh 50% uh

Robin R. Christiansen

50%?

Mr. Cobb

50%, yes.

Robin R. Christiansen

I think that's well over 50%, and uh I think that uh there are some extenuating circumstances of which we cannot speak about how that fire occurred and what the circumstances are there, but if this meets the criteria of 50% or more, it it's got to go.

Mr. Cobb

Yes.

Fred A. Neil

Any other comments from council? If not, I can declare this public hearing open. Is there anyone on uh Webex? None. Anyone uh agreeing to have this building torn down? Seeing none, what is the pleasure of council?

Tricia K. Arndt

I'll make a motion to approve staff recommendation to have this structure demolished on or before December 22nd, 2025.

Julia M. Pillsbury

I'll second.

Fred A. Neil

Okay.

Tricia K. Arndt

Repair or demolish, right?

Council Member

Or repair.

Fred A. Neil

Yeah, at the staff recommendation. Okay.

Mr. Cobb

Yeah, this this would just be demolition because there's no way to repair it safely to to bring it up to um modern code.

Fred A. Neil

Okay, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

City Clerk

Who was the second?

City Clerk

Ms. Hall?

Donyale M. Hall

Yes.

City Clerk

Dr. Pillsbury?

Julia M. Pillsbury

Yes.

City Clerk

Mrs. Arndt?

Tricia K. Arndt

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Rocha?

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

In reference to demolition?

City Clerk

Yes.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Staff recommendation?

City Clerk

Yes.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Lewis?

Brian E. Lewis

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Neil? Dr.--

Fred A. Neil

Yes.

City Clerk

Council President Neil.

City Clerk

Unanimous.

Fred A. Neil

Any other questions? None.

Fred A. Neil

Okay. Mr. Kopp.

Timothy Kopp

All right, let's try to find where we start next.

Timothy Kopp

Slide 68, please.

Timothy Kopp

All right. So 303 West Division Street. This property was condemned on November 21st, 2022. A letter of intent was sent September 3rd, 2025. Notice of public hearing October 24th, 2025. No active utilities since May 4th, 2023. No active permits on file. No repairs have been made to the structure since the condemnation. It's been an active vacant building since March 15th, 2023. And the property has maintained unresolved violations since 2022. Next slide.

Timothy Kopp

Uh current code enforcement fines is $2,400 and taxes is $458 at the time of the PowerPoint. Next slide.

Timothy Kopp

Uh it meets the parameters of the dangerous building uh for damaged walls, unfit for habitation, light, air, and sanitation, fire escapes, general welfare, code violations, unoccupied buildings, and incomplete buildings.

Timothy Kopp

Now if we go to the pictures. There's a picture of the placard right there. I'm waiting for them to get caught up. All right, there we go. Picture of the placard. Next slide.

Timothy Kopp

Um that's the fire escape on the outside of the building. Next slide.

Timothy Kopp

And then next slide.

Timothy Kopp

Uh it's hard to see in the picture, but the chimney's actually being detached. Next slide.

Timothy Kopp

And next slide.

Timothy Kopp

That's a good picture of the rear of the property. Next slide.

Timothy Kopp

And next slide.

Timothy Kopp

Uh next slide.

Timothy Kopp

All right. So this property's um unique. We don't have interior photos. Um the cases have remained active. Uh but the inspector who took the photos is no longer with us who took the interior photos. Uh but the case has been active and remains active. Uh the reason for condemnation was lack of heat and a lack of um amenities to to make the house habitable. Um since then there has been nothing done to the house. It's just sitting

Eddie Kopp

sitting there, uh, right on that corner of Division, just deteriorating. Uh, so our our concern, um, I've sent notice to the 10 people associated with this house because it is under, um, 10 different people's names. I have received zero response from anyone sending notices, um, over the last several years to 10 different people. Um, we have received no response, including for this dangerous building proceeding, there has been no response. So, the property is just being neglected, it's being ignored, and it presents a danger, um, in accordance with dangerous building ordinance.

Fred A. Neil

Any questions? Yes, Mr. Rocha.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Are the taxes—are they behind on the taxes? I think I missed that slide.

Eddie Kopp

At that, um, at the time of this, taxes were $458.40.

Eddie Kopp

And I created, uh, calf this out—

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

So that's like last year's taxes, then. They've been paying the taxes up until this point.

Eddie Kopp

Yep. And that's that, just just for clarification, the PowerPoint was created October 35th or 20th—October 31st of 2025 at the time the calf was created. So since October 31st of 2025, that was the taxes owed.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

And, um, Mr. Kopp, no heat, no electric since 2022?

Eddie Kopp

Yeah, no heat, no electric. Um, the heater, uh, to the best of my knowledge, the heater had went out and has yet to be repaired since then, and it's been unoccupied since 2022.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

So is there electric?

Eddie Kopp

No, there is no electric. There was utilities on for a little while, um, under the owner's name, but now that's that account, I don't want to speak out of turn, but that account is not up to date, I'll say.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

And then the noticeable chimney poses a threat?

Eddie Kopp

Correct. That that property, um, the condition of the property poses a threat. Um—

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Even that you could look through the windows to see on the inside, too, or—

Eddie Kopp

Yeah. Um, you're not supposed to, um, but from what I saw taking pictures of the exterior, I could see, um, some concerns, but to take the picture from the outside would be unlawful, obtain unlawful evidence, so.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Understood. Understood. Okay, thank you. I yield.

Fred A. Neil

Any other members of Council? Yes, Councilman Lewis.

Brian E. Lewis

Mr. Kopp, uh, when you conduct these, uh, inspections and such and, um, declare the property, uh, unsafe, um, and dangerous, uh, do do you, uh, look into whether or not there's any like, uh, if you can't make contact with the owner, if there's any like, uh, pending estate litigation or anything like that? Do you check with the the county, like the Register of Wills?

Eddie Kopp

So, what we do before it comes to this this body, um, I do a lien search to get any any kind of information that way everyone can be notified. Um, so any pending litigation, court hearings, so on and so forth would come up in that lien search, um, because it's to get an—

City Staff

any interested party, to make sure they're notified. So, even if I'm sending notices out to, you know, just one owner and there's more owners involved in that, the letter of intent for this meeting and then the notice of this meeting gets sent out to all reputable people or anyone with interest in there, including mortgage companies, anyone in a trust, so on and so forth. So that gets sent out to everyone. But a lien search is conducted prior to the start of this process before I send any notices to make sure they're captured.

Brian E. Lewis

So so you did your due diligence in attempting to notify the owner or owners of this property, correct?

City Staff

That's correct.

Brian E. Lewis

Okay. No further questions. Thank you.

Fred A. Neil

Any other members of Council? Yes, Councilwoman Arndt.

Tricia K. Arndt

Can we look at slide 68?

Tricia K. Arndt

So my question, there was a public hearing on October 24th? What was that hearing for?

City Staff

Uh, notice of public hearing was posted October 24th, 2025.

Tricia K. Arndt

Is that And that was for tonight's hearing?

City Staff

Yes.

City Staff

Yeah. So that's the notice. Um, it was sent and posted on October 20- 24th, 2025 5 2025, that's notifying them of this hearing.

City Staff

Um, so it sent first class mail, certified mail, and physically posted on the property.

Tricia K. Arndt

Okay. And it was initially condemned because of lack of utilities?

City Staff

Um, lack of heat throughout. Um, there was a lack of heat was the condemnable offense, but there was several issues within the property to include smoke alarms, interior surfaces, roof damage, infestation, emergency escape opening, the exterior walls, windows and door frames, residential occupancies which would have been the heat, facilities required which would have been the electric, required testing which would have been a structural engineering report, sanitation, and then a permit required. So those are those are the outstanding violations for the property in addition to the dangerous building violations.

Tricia K. Arndt

Gotcha. And were people living there at that time?

City Staff

At the time of condemnation, yeah, and it's been vacant since.

Tricia K. Arndt

Okay. Thank you. I yield.

Fred A. Neil

Any other questions from Council? I declare this public hearing open. Anybody in favor of maintaining or not destroying or bringing down this this house? Is there anyone online?

Fred A. Neil

No one is online. Anyone in favor of the recommendation to have this property demolished?

Fred A. Neil

Anyone online? Having no one online, I call this public hearing closed. What is the desire of the Council?

Fred A. Neil

Councilman Pi- Pillsbury, or was it Councilwoman Hall? Councilwoman Hall.

Donyale M. Hall

I move that we accept the recommendation by staff to move forward on the condemnation of this building.

Fred A. Neil

Councilman Pillsbury seconds?

Julia M. Pillsbury

Yes.

Fred A. Neil

All in favor

Eddie Kopp

Can I get clarification?

Eddie Kopp

Uh the motion should be, cuz it's already condemned, the motion should be to repair or demolish by December 20th.

Donyale M. Hall

My apologies. Demolish. I amend my motion to the language to be adopted for demolition. Thank you.

Fred A. Neil

Demolish. Okay. Thank you. Madam Clerk, please call the motion.

City Clerk

Mrs. Hall?

Donyale M. Hall

Yes.

City Clerk

Dr. Pillsbury?

Julia M. Pillsbury

Yes.

City Clerk

Mrs. Arndt?

Tricia K. Arndt

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Rocha?

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Lewis?

Brian E. Lewis

Yes.

City Clerk

Council President Neil?

Fred A. Neil

Yes.

City Clerk

6-0.

Fred A. Neil

The motion carries. And Mr. Kopp?

Eddie Kopp

One more, we're at the end of the road, I promise. Um

Fred A. Neil

415 West Division.

Eddie Kopp

Starts on slide 95. So this is going to be for 415 West Division Street. All right, so this property um was condemned May 28th of 2024. Um the actual main parcel was condemned May 20th 2024. It has been um the other units were condemned since 2020, but the main parcel was this year. Uh Letter of Intent was sent and posted September 3rd, 2025. Notice of public hearing was October 24th, 2025. No utilities since April 4th, 2025. No active permits on file. No repairs have been made to the structure since the condemnation. Um just caveat on no repairs have been made to the structure since uh 2020 the the original case in 2020. Uh and it's been an active building case since May 6th, 2025. Next slide.

Eddie Kopp

Outstanding fees is $16,625. Um outstanding fines, uh other fees, which this includes a ridiculous utility bill, is $10,418.75, and taxes are $904.35. Next slide.

Eddie Kopp

Um the property meets um outstanding violations as damaged interior walls, unfit for habitation, light, air, and sanitation, fire escapes, general welfare code violations, unoccupied buildings, and incomplete buildings. If we can get to the pictures, you'll see a lot of this. Let them get caught up. All right, next slide.

Eddie Kopp

So, this was on 8/20 of '24. Uh this property, as you can see, has been boarded. It has been broken into numerous occasions. Um next slide.

Eddie Kopp

This is us arriving to the property. You can see the lock has been completely kicked off. Um that's how we found the property. Next slide.

Eddie Kopp

There's some pictures of the interior of the property. This is what it looks like inside. Um the homeless have taken camp in there. Uh next slide.

Eddie Kopp

So, on April 4th, 2025, the the last occupied building, this was the last occupied building with the tenant inside, and these were the conditions of the property. Next slide.

Eddie Kopp

That is what you think it is, that is a bucket full of

City Staff

urine, because there was no water to the property. So that was the way they were using the bathroom. Next slide.

City Staff

Great, kerosene heater on top of a battery. Um, major fire concern. Next slide.

City Staff

This is what the property looks like, um, the front of it. Next slide.

City Staff

So, I used this picture, um, for two reasons: one, people keep trying to break in there, but this shows that boarding to the International Property Maintenance Code standards, it shows a great example of why the cost of building is so much. As you can see, they pried and pried and pried and could not get into the building. So, with this, there's a two-by-four on the inside on the other piece that wood that prevents them from getting in. So they spent a lot of time trying to get that little piece off, but then they stopped. Um, so building to this standard does work. Next slide.

City Staff

That's a side view of the building. Next slide.

City Staff

That's it. All right. That was fast.

City Staff

So, um, this property has been nuisance since 2020. Nothing has been done, and it's just posing more and more of a public health threat and now public safety threat. So it's my recommendation to repair or demolish the building by December 22nd of 2024.

Fred A. Neil

Council, any comments? Questions? Seeing no comments and questions, yes, uh, Councilman Rocha.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Thank you, Council President. So, no you you weren't able to contact the property owner, no response? What did

City Staff

I have I have speaking. The property is under Ham and Cheese, LLC. We have reached out to them on numerous occasions. Um over the last 2 years they have been mute. Um, we're sending our notices. They're signing for notices. They're they're just not doing anything. But the last time I talked to them, they um they said they're out of money, and they weren't going to do nothing more. So here we are with this building, we're stuck with this building, um, just in deplorable state. But yeah, my last contact was probably about 2 years ago. We met them on site. We we specifically walked through, showed them every violation, what it was, what needs fixed, how they can fix it. And here we are 2 years later, 3 years later, it's still not fixed.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Uh, I yield.

Fred A. Neil

Any other members of Council? Seeing none, I declare the public hearing open. If there's anyone in the audience or on web to say why this uh building should not be uh demolished? Seeing none, all those who who favor uh having this building demolished? Seeing none, none online, then I call this uh hearing closed and will accept a motion from council.

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Move just to accept staff recommendation uh to dem- to repair or demolish this property at 4--

Fred A. Neil

15 West Division Street.

Brian E. Lewis

Second by Lewis.

Fred A. Neil

Second by Lewis. Okay, we have a motion on the floor. All those in favor please call the roll.

City Clerk

Okay.

Fred A. Neil

I'm working it out.

City Clerk

Ms. Hall?

Donyale M. Hall

Yes.

City Clerk

Dr. Pillsbury?

Julia M. Pillsbury

Yes.

City Clerk

Mrs. Arndt?

Tricia K. Arndt

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Rocha?

Gerald L. Rocha, Sr.

Yes.

City Clerk

Mr. Lewis?

Brian E. Lewis

Yes.

City Clerk

Council President Neil?

Fred A. Neil

Yes.

City Clerk

6-0.

Fred A. Neil

That's unanimous vote to have to follow the staff recommendations for this building. With that, uh that is the last piece of business, and I believe I can just say the meeting is adjourned.