Enterprise council adopts demolition resolutions for 16 nuisance properties after public hearing

The Enterprise City Council on June 16 adopted resolutions authorizing the city to proceed with demolition processes for 16 properties the city designated as public nuisances, following a public hearing in which property owners, managers and city staff presented evidence and remediation intentions.

City attorney Ben Goldman told the council the city had followed a multi-step notice process — 20-day courtesy letters, dangerous-buildings checklists, list pendens filings and published legal notices — and that the properties before the council had advanced to phase four of the demolition program. "We are requesting on all of these that they be ordered for demolition," Goldman said, adding that owners who present a complete remediation package can halt the process.

Public works director Barry Mott reviewed photographs and findings for the listed properties, saying the phase-four packet covered 16 list pendens and 42 residential units and documenting repeated structural problems: sagging roofs, water damage, broken windows, electrical issues and interior decay. "At this point coming into the hearing we do not have the three parts of a plan that we ask for — a scope from a professional, a reasonable Gantt-chart timeline, and proof of funds," Mott said.

Several property owners and managers told the council they were working on remedial steps. Robert McGrath, owner of 110 Scott Drive, said he has secured aid from an organization and is preparing required paperwork. "I'm making progress," McGrath said, noting he recently regained access to the house and is contracting work. Justin Flowers, who recently acquired a fire-damaged home in a tax sale, said he and his partner have divided remediation into phases and have funds on hand to move forward.

By contrast, Castle Ridge manager Walt Wyatt — who said six of the eight affected units he manages are currently occupied — warned the council that moving forward without feasible alternatives would displace residents. "Taking people's property is a pretty serious matter," Wyatt said. "These people are not rich — some of these properties are their investments, their retirement." Staff responded that many properties on past lists were successfully remediated after owners submitted plans and that the ordinance and timeline are designed to allow remediation whenever feasible.

Goldman and staff emphasized that a compliant remediation package must include: (1) a technically feasible scope of work (often from an engineer or contractor), (2) a realistic timeline (Gantt chart), and (3) proof of funds or financing to complete the work. The city reiterated it will pause demolition up until the point it issues a contractor notice to proceed, and that additional steps (asbestos testing, utility disconnects, bid and award processes) occur after a demolition order — meaning actual demolition is months, not days, away.

The council adopted the demolition resolutions in a single motion and carried them by voice vote. City staff said owners who submit the required documentation promptly may have their properties removed from the demolition list or have the process paused so remediation can proceed. The council’s action authorizes staff to continue the administrative and procurement steps necessary to implement demolition orders when warranted.

The council meeting packet contains evidence binders, photos dated May 28–29, and additional materials provided today for several addresses; interested owners were encouraged to work with city staff to draft and submit remediation plans that meet the three-part standard.

The council closed the public hearing and moved on to other agenda business.