Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition And Cleanup topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Works approves demolition bid for Burgesall property on 10th Street NE
Summary
At its July 6 meeting, the Board of Works voted to accept a demolition/cleanup bid for the Burgesall property on 10th Street Northeast after staff opened bids and a resident urged expedited action because the house was open and occupied. The motion passed by voice vote.
The Board of Works voted July 6 at City Hall to accept a contractor’s bid to demolish and clear the parcel the record identifies as the Burgesall property on 10th Street Northeast. Committee member (speaker 1) moved to accept the bidder identified on the record as Carr/Carl Thomas (JBL), and the Chair (speaker 2) seconded. Following brief discussion and a public plea for faster action, the board took a voice vote and recorded affirmative responses; the motion passed.
Staff (speaker 3) opened the submitted bids and read line items on the record, including per-ton fill charges and demolition costs. Board members asked whether the winning bidder could expedite work and whether basements or additional filling would change the price. A resident (speaker 4) told the board the house is “open” and said people were entering, staying and using paraphernalia inside, urging the board to move faster to protect the neighborhood. Committee members said they would try to contact the contractor (named in the transcript as Doug Hall and as Carr/Carl Thomas in relation to other bids) and proceed once the contractor could start.
Committee member (speaker 1) made the motion to award the bid; the Chair (speaker 2) seconded. When the board called for votes, individuals on the record responded “Yes” (named in the discussion as Linda; Tony; Raul). The transcript records affirmative voice votes and no formal roll-call tally beyond those affirmative responses.
The board did not record an explicit completion timeline in the motion; members discussed standard timelines (staff noted the board typically allows 60 days in similar work) and asked the bidder to attempt a 30–45 day window if feasible. Staff said they would follow up with the contractor to confirm scheduling and any potential hazmat concerns before work begins.
Next steps: staff will contact the awarded contractor to arrange start dates and report back to the Board of Works; neighbors who raised concerns are to be kept informed of the start schedule.
