06 - MINUTES FROM VARIOUS BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES

Home Browse Search

summary also states there would be no additional costs to the owner due to the equipment being left on the roof if this plan were followed. Ken Kohls asked if the owner was at meeting. Mr. Talley said that he was not. Charles Richards asked if Mr. Alarid was invited. Mr. Talley said that the owner was invited to the meeting, but did not attend. The next item presented was an email chain from David Isbell to Carla Easton on 6/2/16 that states that owner did not agree with the repair plan developed at meeting on 5/26/16. It also states EIKON has terminated their relationship with the property owner. Mr. Isbell also expresses concern with the condition of the wall, but that our BSC can handle it, and he does not see the need to contact the State Fire Marshal. Ms. Easton's response asks if they found a solution to facilitate the wall demolition to which the cell companies were agreeable. Mr. Isbell states that a plan was worked out with all parties to demolish and repair the wall within the 90 -day time period, but that "David did not agree to it and refuses to consider it." Mr. Kohls asked what Mr. Isbell meant when he said he did not see the need to contact the State Fire Marshal. Mr. Talley said he didn't know. Mr. Kohls asked if that was a semi - threat. Robert Talley said that as Mr. Isbell is not here, he could not speak to that. The next timeline document presented was a Scope of Work and estimate from Building Abatement Demolition Company, Jud Stringer, Director, who was in attendance at the 5/26/16 meeting. The Scope of Work is broken down in stages: Asbestos Abatement, Exterior Brick Replacement, and Exterior Restoration. The document states, "all electrical lines /conduit and gas lines must be de- energized and removed or re- routed." Mr. Isbell's follow -up notes to the 5/26/16 meeting also stated power can be re- routed, and all parties agreed except owner. Mr. Talley then presented the next document in the timeline, an email dated 7/23/16 from David Alarid to the State Fire Marshal, Chris Connealy, requesting his assistance in having the building "red- tagged" by the City of Paris. Attached to this email were the Scope of Work document from Building Abatement Demolition (BAD) Company referenced above, and a proposal from Western Specialty Contractors. Kelley Stalder with the State Fire Marshal's Office forwarded this email to Clyde Crews, stating he would be glad to discuss it with him, and that he (Mr. Stalder) had notified the inspector for this area, Scott McAnallen. Mr. Kohls asked what the term `red -tag' means. Mr. Talley said that he's not sure what Mr. Alarid meant, but Code Enforcement can orange tag buildings to be demolished. The City does use actual red tags. Fire Chief Larry Wright said a red tag is usually used by cities to tag a utility, i.e. electrical, plumbing, etc., that is not up to Code. Red tagging usually means the structure needs to be repaired before it can be "green tagged" to be used. Code Enforcement doesn't red tag buildings or electrical. The Fire Department is interested in sprinkler systems, and can red tag those, but the City doesn't red tag