Hamlet outlines multi-year plan to tackle dozens of abandoned, hazardous properties

Officer Dalton Millan, who handles code enforcement for the Hamlet Police Department, delivered a sweeping inventory of abandoned, burned and nuisance properties and urged the council to commit more resources to removal and remediation. "We still have an 80% compliance rate where our code enforcement efforts" he said, while also warning that many burned structures contain hazardous materials and squatters and are substantial public-safety risks.

Millan showed photographs and a city map highlighting properties he labeled as the most severe, including addresses he said pose immediate safety risks (examples cited by Millan: 426 Champlain Street; 315 Henman Street; 398 High Street; 427 Car Street, the former New Hope adult care home). He described categories of properties—burned structures that are effectively unsalvageable, abandoned houses with major overgrowth, and nuisance properties with boarded windows or structural failure—and urged faster remediation on the worst sites.

Interim Manager Bailey and City staff joined Millan in discussing options to speed the process. Bailey said the legal process for demolition can be lengthy when owners contest actions, but agreed that prioritizing abandoned parcels could allow the city to move more quickly. "We're talking 40 years of neglect," Millan said, estimating that without additional funds and equipment the city might be able to demolish only one to two properties per year; he described a multi-year backlog and said economies of scale (contracting to clear multiple properties at once) could reduce costs.

Council and staff discussed funding and disposal logistics. Millan noted the code enforcement budget currently has about $20,000 for condemnation and that disposal fees at regional landfills (especially for hazardous debris such as asbestos) are a significant cost driver. Staff said some debris would need to be transported to facilities outside the county because of hazardous-material rules, and that disposal fees can reach thousands of dollars per demolition. The council discussed whether the county or regional partners might waive fees or whether contracting to handle multiple properties at once would create better pricing.

Staff asked the council to consider a modest capital investment to accelerate work: purchase of heavy equipment (a trackhoe and a bucket truck) was discussed in tandem with a budget amendment that would draw on remaining American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and wastewater-fund allocations. Millan suggested that expanding the in-house capability to perform some demolition or site preparation could reduce repeated outside-contract costs, but cautioned that staffing and disposal remain binding constraints.

The presentation closed with a Q&A in which staff said they would refine a prioritized property list, pursue practical legal steps to expedite clearances for the most hazardous abandoned structures, and return to council with clearer cost estimates and potential contracting approaches. Millan provided business cards and invited residents to report additional problem addresses.

The council did not vote on a demolition program during the meeting; staff said they will present more detailed cost and scheduling proposals for future action.