Council lets owner repair 626 E. Saint Peter under strict schedule, with demolition as fallback

The New Iberia City Council voted to pursue a negotiated repair agreement with the owner of 626 East Saint Peter that gives the owner the option to repair the structure under a strict timetable instead of immediate city‑led demolition. City staff said the council had previously voted to demolish the property but that the owner appealed; the agreement would let the owner complete work subject to inspection deadlines and an enforceable default provision.

Why it matters: the decision allows the owner an opportunity to restore the property while protecting the city by reserving the right to demolish the building if the owner misses any deadline. The council framed the action as an unusual, case‑by‑case experiment rather than a precedent that obligates the city to offer the same terms in every future case.

Key points of the agreement presented to council • Option and risk: city staff said the owner, identified in the record as Miss Asma, may choose to proceed with repairs under an agreement that requires her to dismiss her court appeal and sign a general release. Staff told the council the owner bears all cost overruns, delays and increased scope; if she fails to meet the schedule the city may demolish the property without further proceedings. • Schedule and code references: the agreement sets an inspection‑verified schedule with the following milestones: obtain permit by March 21, 2025; by April 29, 2025 complete exterior repairs necessary to make the building safe and fit for human occupancy under sections 102 and 111 of the International Property Maintenance Code; by May 13, 2025 complete electrical service and bring the building into compliance with Article 230 of the National Electrical Code; by July 22, 2025 complete plumbing/sewer work and any rewiring needed to meet Articles 310 and 398 of the National Electrical Code; and by Sept. 18, 2025 complete all remaining work. • Enforcement: inspections will verify compliance; any missed deadline constitutes default and permits the city to proceed with demolition without further appeal under the terms staff described. • Owner commitment: Miss Asma addressed the council and said she planned to sign the agreement and complete the work. The council urged her to meet deadlines and warned that invested funds could be lost if the work is not completed.

Council discussion and context Council members, the city attorney and inspection staff discussed alternatives including owner‑led demolition and the legal implications of an appeal. Corporal Tim (police) and others questioned whether offering this agreement would create a required precedent for other properties; council members said this case is unusual and the city will not be obligated to repeat the arrangement in every future case. A council member referenced a prior estimate of roughly $20,000 as an example of owner investment risk if the property were later demolished.

Vote and next steps The council voted to proceed with the repair agreement and authorized staff to finalize paperwork and inspections. Staff will verify permit issuance and subsequent milestone compliance and will return to demolition if the owner defaults.