Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vacant Structure Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mobile officials move to secure, not demolish, historic 962 Government Street after permitting lapsed
Summary
City staff and councilors discussed changing a planned demolition of a historic structure at 962 Government Street to a securing action after the property owner’s permits expired; an engineering report shows structural deficiencies and staff said securing will likely require contracts above the $15,000 threshold.
Mobile City Council members and staff discussed changing the city’s recommended outcome for a long-vacant historic building at 962 Government Street from demolition to securing the property, citing an engineering report and a pattern of incomplete renovations by the current owner.
The discussion grew out of a public-hearing agenda item listed for consideration of structures to be declared public nuisances and ordered demolished. David, a municipal enforcement staff member, told the council the owner’s renovation permit had expired and the owner had not completed required work after acquiring the property three to four years ago.
“This is [a] historic structure in a historic district,” David said during the meeting. He told the council there is an engineering report in the packet that “does show some deficiencies and some recommendations with the framing.” Municipal enforcement had issued notices that allow for either securing or demolition, he said, and recommended securing for now. David also said the owner may appear at a later meeting and that the owner has listed the property for sale.
Council members raised practical and legal questions. One member said securing the building will require hiring architects and contracts that “would have to come back to City Council exceeding the $15,000 mark.” Another council member expressed concern about recoverable costs, saying, “I think there’s more legal questions here now than than they are just secured. And my concern would be, recoverable cost would be my concern.”
Council members also discussed the need for more secure temporary fencing and regular monitoring to prevent unauthorized entry at the site. Staff noted that securing the building will involve municipal enforcement working with the historic-preservation office and that any structural stabilization or architect-led work would be procured as contracts brought back to council for approval.
The city packet contained an engineering report referenced by staff; municipal enforcement told the council both securing and demolition were options under the existing notices. No formal demolition order was adopted at the meeting; staff said they would pursue securing at this time and expected to return to the council if contracts exceeding procurement thresholds were needed.
The matter remains open for further updates; staff said they expected more information if the owner attends the follow-up meeting and will present contract requests to council if required.
