Enterprise council orders demolition of 21 nuisance properties after second-round outreach yields owner take‑ups

Enterprise — The Enterprise City Council on Tuesday adopted a group of resolutions ordering demolition of 21 properties the city says are public nuisances, approving the measures after staff reported that many owners have chosen voluntary demolition or applied for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.

The city opened a public hearing and then voted to adopt resolutions numbered 061725 through 061725T to clear identified unsafe structures. The council also approved a companion resolution extending demolition deadlines for a prior set of properties by 120 days to Oct. 15, 2025.

City staff characterized the results so far as a stronger outcome for round 2 of the city’s demolition initiative. “The overwhelming majority of those have already contacted the city and expressed their desire to have those properties demolished and have taken advantage of the carrot rather than the stick,” attorney Ben Goldman said during the hearing.

Thomas Mott, who presented the quarterly blight‑elimination update, told the council the program has addressed 67 properties across phases 1–3, encompassing about 100 dwelling units. “Of those 67 properties, 23 were mitigated by their own property owners,” Mott said; he added eight property owners had signed up for the CDBG demolition grant and several sites were either already demolished by private owners or by city public‑works crews.

Mott and city engineer Barry Monner described specific properties discussed in the hearing. The council packet included photographic evidence and certified‑mail proofs for each address. Staff pointed to multiple sites where structural collapse or chronic vacancy posed safety risks, and to an 8‑unit complex on Dixie Drive where the middle unit’s roof collapse has compromised the shared structure. “It is the opinion of our city engineer … that 23 is not structurally sound, and it has compromised the entirety of the structure,” Monner said, explaining that the units share party walls not designed to function as independent exterior bearing walls.

Property owners and representatives were given the opportunity to speak. Seth Nunez identified himself as speaking on behalf of his grandmother, the owner of one affected unit. Owner Keith Lewis raised concerns about receiving mailed notices and said he learned of the city’s actions through his property manager rather than directly.

Goldman and staff said the council’s decision to order demolition does not foreclose property owners from proposing alternatives. Goldman explained the city will consider owner‑led plans if they meet three criteria: an engineer’s stamped plans demonstrating technical feasibility, a realistic schedule showing the work can be completed without exposing occupants to additional risk, and evidence the owner has funds or a contractor ready to perform the work. If an owner meets those conditions, staff said they would work with the owner to evaluate the proposal. “If you have those 3 elements, technically feasible, reasonable amount of time, and the ability to complete it with the funding, it’ll be successful,” Goldman told the council.

Staff also highlighted recent successful outcomes: a large private‑subdivision parking repair at Apache Drive Apartments was completed after legal action, and public‑works crews recently demolished at least two derelict houses the presentation showed were safety hazards. Mott said clearing these blighted lots helps make parcels shovel‑ready for redevelopment and cited an example of a new subdivision planned nearby a recently cleared lot.

The council followed the staff recommendation and adopted the demolition resolutions and the 120‑day extension for prior orders. Under the ordinance and the schedule announced, any demolition ordered by the council would not be carried out sooner than 20 days after adoption, and extensions may delay implementation up to the maximum provided by the resolution.

City officials said they will continue to process owner applications for the CDBG voluntary demolition program while preserving the city’s authority to act if owners do not complete remediation or voluntary demolition.

The council’s action concludes the public‑hearing phase for the listed properties; staff said they will return to follow up on administrative steps for individual demolition projects and any remediation agreements that may be proposed by owners.