Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident disputes $7,400 emergency securing bill; city officials say action was for public safety and offer payment discussion
Summary
At a public hearing, resident Jim Walker contested a $7,400 emergency securing bill for 470 Dolphin Street and alleged selective enforcement; Municipal Enforcement Director David Daughtry Ball said city crews acted during Mardi Gras to secure hazardous walls and doors, citing safety concerns, and council asked staff to provide cost breakdowns and to facilitate accounting discussions.
Jim Walker, a property owner who identified himself at the council podium, told the Mobile City Council that municipal enforcement has repeatedly targeted his Dolphin Street property and that he had not received a scope of work before being assessed a $7,400 bill for emergency securing at 470 Dolphin Street. "There's no scope of work. I haven't met with anybody, and now there's another seven grand," Walker said, describing earlier towing and enforcement actions he called selective.
Council members allowed Walker to make his case during a public hearing to "fix the cost" for demolition and securing at multiple addresses. After Walker spoke, council asked city staff to ensure he received documentation showing the specific costs associated with the work.
David Daughtry Ball, Director of Municipal Enforcement, responded that municipal crews performed emergency securing during Mardi Gras because a sidewalk and adjacent wall had partially collapsed at 470 Dolphin and presented a 2½–3-foot drop that could harm pedestrians. He said a separate action at 661–663 Dolphin involved securing rot-damaged doors and plate glass at child-shoulder height that posed a safety hazard. "It required municipal enforcement to go forward and secure that building specifically during Mardi Gras," Daughtry Ball said, and he identified the estimated amounts: $7,400 for 470 Dolphin and roughly $700 for 661–663 Dolphin, noting the scopes of work differed.
Councilman Corey Penn thanked Walker for coming forward and praised municipal enforcement while also urging staff to assist Walker. The council asked the administration to provide a detailed written breakdown of charges and directed that Walker be put in contact with the accounting department to discuss possible payment arrangements. Daughtry Ball said accounting typically handles payment negotiations once the council adopts a fixed-cost resolution.
The council's consent docket later included multiple "fixing cost" items for demolition and securing at listed addresses; those items were introduced as part of the consent resolutions during the meeting. The council closed the public hearing after staff and members discussed next steps for providing cost detail and facilitating contact with the accounting office.
What happens next: Council requested staff to deliver a written itemized cost breakdown to Walker and for accounting to work with him on payment options; the public record shows municipal enforcement characterized the actions as emergency public-safety measures rather than routine demolition.
Notes: Amounts and scopes are reported as stated by the Director of Municipal Enforcement during the hearing; the council asked for further documentation to clarify cost components.
