Travis County Commssioners Court
March 30, 2004
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 26
It is now 9:44, why don't we call up number 26. It is to consider and take appropriate action on request to abate nuisance conditions at the following properties: a is 12406 twin creek park drive. And b is o hickory ridge road.
>> good morning, judge.
>> good morning.
>> (indiscernible). We do a few of these a year. We have two properties that health and human services is coming forward to get permission to abate. They have used the usual process before they arrived at this point. There is monies that are available to abate these properties. What i'd like for these others to do is give you a brief summary of the steps that they have taken to date to try to get the owner to -- the owners to abate these properties.
>> okay.
>> good morning, Commissioners, judge. My name is dennis runner with the health and human services department. We have two properties that we would like to give funding to -- it is funding that we already have in place to abate. But these properties are located south of the manchaca area in southeast Travis County. Both properties we came to investigate as a result of complaints of the citizens in the neighborhood known as twin creek park. Both complaints were filed back in the year 2001. And we have gone through a very lengthy and detailed process to first of all try to gain voluntary compliance from the property owners to clean the properties themselves. The next step was to file class c charges in the justice of the peace court in precinct 3 to try to get the courts to clean them up, and the owners of the properties have still refused to comply, so we started the formal abatement procedure with notifications back in November. We've gone through that procedure. We've held a hearing before the health authority. We actually held those hearings on the properties so the property owners actually knew where we were foing to be. They did not show up for the hearings. And now we've come to you to request permission to spend the monies that we have set aside to clean these properties. Both properties are going to cost right at $6,000 to clean. Unfortunately, we have to spend that money to make the living conditions better for the neighbors in the area. On both properties we have a trailer house to dismantle and haul off. We also have to clean up other rubbish, trash, debris and high grass and weeds on the properties. That's pretty much where we stand.
>> dr. Sherwood, can you tell me why we go ahead and do the abatement, is there any chance of recouping that expenditure after the property has been cleaned up and the property owners have been notified? That this is the amount of money that has been spent?
>> yes, sir.
>> how does that procedure work?
>> as part of chapter 61, which is the county's ordinance to deal with abatements, after we clean the properties, we then bill the owners of the properties for the amount of cleanup. And then if they don't pay that bill within a specified amount of time, we then go and assess a lien against that property with the hope that either they pay it some day or if it sells that they will pay it at that time.
>> so a lien is imposed against the property?
>> yes, sir.
>> is either of the properties occupied?
>> no, sir, not at this time.
>> so no one lives there so none of the property is occupied.
>> no, sir. They've been vacant for at least a year.
>> for at least a year? Okay, sir.
>> the background does a pretty good job -- the backup of showing efforts that we've made to contact them. Have we actually received any kind of communication from the property owner?
>> on the property at 12406 twin creek park drive, we had some communication with the daughter of the owner of the property. She was in contact with us back in November, December and January. And was going to take on the cleaning herself, but after one day of work, quit cleaning and we had no more contact with them. I did contact her by phone last week to let her know about this hearing.
>> okay. Any communication with the owners of the other properties?
>> no, sir. The only communication we've had is through registered mail. They had received registered mail, signed for it, and they have not bothered to contact us. And we have not been able to locate a telephone number for them to actually call them up.
>> what happened when the matters were taken to the jp court?
>> neither of the parties showed up for court. On the twin creek park drive property, a failure to appear warrant was actually issued for the owner of that property, but she could never be located by the constable.
>> and the county attorney has been working on this? [ inaudible ].
>> he gives us to these right at the end after he good dis it all. But I can handle any questions you have.
>> are there any required due process to the owners of the property has been met?
>> what he's gone through, judge, with regard to the hearings, complying with our chapter 61, and I guess the health and safety code 343 provision.
>> so for the record, we have pretty much two years trying to get the owners to do the right thing and this is a last resort?
>> yes, sir, that's exactly right.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. I was serving as interim health authority at the time and held hearings on both of these properties, as dennis reports. I've reviewed, as you have just done, the process that he's gone through to try to contact the owners and physically looked at the properties. I can assure you, judge, and Commissioners, that these do constitute health and safety hazards. I wouldn't want my children growing up next to these, and I dare say that no one else in the room would want their children growing up next to a hazard like this. So I fully support the recommendations of staff.
>> and you do a pretty good job of fixing the situation out at the properties?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> let me ask a question. Is this -- I guess this butane thing, does that have any actual gas in it or are they just empty?
>> I haven't personally checked to see if there is anything in the tank.
>> that could be a hazard.
>> yes, sir. After we get approval from you, I hope, we will contact the utility companies and also propane company to take care of the utilities and these type issues. And then our contractor that we have under county contract will take care of the cleanup itself.
>> so the next step, assuming the court moves approval today, is to do the cleanup, pay the contractor, notify the owners of the cost, ask them to reimburse the county, and I guess we have the pictures up before. We had a picture of the after so we will know.
>> certainly.
>> and if they don't reimburse Travis County, we will just pursue the remedies that we were advised about. Any other questions or comments? Move approval of the recommendation as to both properties, that is for the county to remediate, pay for it and seek reimbursement from the property owners. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion? Anybody else here on this item? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> thank you, sir.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 10:27 AM