Grand Prairie board gives homeowner, lender and contractor 30 days to present repair plan for 1605 Acacia Street

The Grand Prairie Building Advisory Appeals Board voted 6-0 on March 2 to extend a repair order for 1605 Acacia Street and asked the homeowner, her lender and a contractor to return to the board on April 6 with a signed release, an engineer’s report or confirmation that one has been engaged, and a detailed plan and timeline for repairs.

Chair opened the hearing on the property, which staff described as "substandard and dangerous," saying the initial discovery of a hole in the roof dated to May 2023 and that the prior order to repair, remove or demolish the structure had been set to expire March 4. Staff recommended the board uphold the order while allowing time for the parties to present a path forward.

Homeowner Jill Malone identified herself for the record as living at "1605 Acacia Street, Grand Prairie, Texas 75051" and told the board she had been in contact with her mortgage company and its attorney and had submitted an updated progress report to staff. "I wanted to thank everyone for everything being on this journey with me," Malone said.

Thomas Brackett, the attorney representing the lender MidFirst Bank, told the board the bank "has offered to make pay for the repairs and begin making the repairs to the property, in exchange for [Malone] giving them a release of liability" so the lender’s contractor can work on the house. Brackett said the lender would likely hire its own contractor, seek permits and that, "assuming she agrees and approves to that, then they could get ... 30 days to get the permits pulled and then ... maybe after that" finish the work. He added that if Malone does not sign a release the lender could move toward foreclosure.

Contractor Roger Dimas, who inspected the roof with city staff, said crews found "a lot of compromise" after tearing back shingles and that several trusses and some headers were so rotted they must be replaced or supported. "We could not go any forward to do any additional roofing work" until all decking is removed and an architect or engineer gives drawings, Dimas said, adding that an on-site rafters solution could be less costly than replacing all factory trusses but that exact scope and cost are unknown until a full assessment.

Board members pressed for clarity about permits and funding. Staff said an initial permit was pulled for roof repair but was red-tagged after inspectors discovered the repairs needed exceeded the permit scope. Brackett told the board the lender was offering to add repair costs to Malone’s loan on a 0% interest basis "so it doesn't change her payments," but the added balance would be payable when the house is sold or the loan matures.

The board discussed timing for next steps, noting that an engineer's report may be mandatory for the city’s acceptance of a repair plan and that pulling permits could take two weeks under normal circumstances but up to 30 days or longer if engineering or architectural drawings are required. Several members expressed frustration at repeated last-minute updates and said they wanted a clear timeline rather than another short extension without substance.

A committee member moved to extend the staff recommendation to the board’s April 6 meeting and to require that the lender, the contractor or an agent capable of speaking to scope and timeline appear and be prepared to present an anticipated scope of work, timeline and any engineer documentation. The motion was seconded and passed 6-0.

The board recorded that, by April 6, it expected an update on whether Malone had signed a release, a plan of action and scope of work for the repairs, and either an engineer’s report or evidence that an engineer had been engaged. If the parties do not show sufficient progress, the board said it would consider further enforcement options and allow code enforcement to act as necessary.

The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.