Sioux City’s council voted 5‑0 to amend a prior resolution and authorize a 90‑day delay before demolishing a deteriorated property at 5 Thirteenth Ninth Street, saying the code permits a temporary stay while an owner shows forward progress toward repair.
City staff told the council the property includes five buildings, one of which previously housed a central boiler that later failed. The owner has begun gutting the main structure, removed debris and plaster, and provided documentation including repair estimates from electrical, plumbing and mechanical contractors and a $100,000 cashier’s check to meet the city’s bond requirement.
Why it matters: council members said preserving a path to rehabilitation could avoid taxpayer expense for demolition, but several voiced concern about site security while repairs continue and said lack of progress would trigger demolition.
City staff said the 90‑day stay is the maximum the city code allows for this kind of delay; if the owner fails to meet terms of the agreement the city would proceed to demolition. Council members asked about timing and scope: staff estimated six to nine months as a plausible timeline for full rehabilitation if work proceeds quickly, but said some large projects have taken longer and the city will continue to monitor permits and demonstrated progress.
Mayor (unnamed) addressed public misconceptions, saying, "no matter how the vote goes the city doesn't have any money in this project contrary to what social media would like you to believe; this is a private development." Staff confirmed the city is not financing the project. A council member noted the $100,000 bond "says a lot" about the owner’s intent to proceed.
Council members also raised public‑safety and security concerns; one asked whether the parcel would be secured with construction fencing, to which staff said they did not have that information. Staff said the building would be converted to electric heat and that a dedicated sprinkler line was already in place.
Formal action: the council approved the 90‑day delay 5‑0. Staff said if the owner meets permit and progress milestones the city will continue to work with them; if not, the city will move forward to demolition and may use the bond to offset costs.
The council did not specify a precise total investment figure for the rehabilitation. A number read aloud during discussion appeared to be garbled in the transcript; staff did not provide a verified dollar total during the meeting.