Lincoln aldermen approve remediation process for house on Tremont Street

 

[July 23, 2021] 

A roach infested house on Tremont was the topic of discussion at the Lincoln City Council on July 13th and July 19th. After much debate, on July 19th the council approved a broad spectrum remediation plan.

City Attorney John Hoblit and Building and Safety Officer Wes Woodhall were authorized to move forward in legal actions to, at the least, seek remediation of the roach infestation at the house, and at most, proceed with demolition of the property.

Hoblit brought the topic to the council’s Committee of the Whole meeting on July 13th. He advised the council that the property located at 1431 Tremont Street has “rampant roach, mice and rat issues.” The problem is impacting the neighborhood and home owners in that area are completely stressed over their own battle to keep the vermin away from their homes.

Hoblit explained that there is a unique situation ongoing at the house. The house is occupied by someone who has no authority to be living there. He said that the original owner of the home is deceased. In addition, the heir to the estate is also deceased. There is a living relative out of state, but that person is taking no responsibility for the house. In addition, the person living in the house owns another home in Lincoln, and does not need to be living on Tremont Street.

Hoblit said that the house is causing a nuisance and he felt justified in seeking permission to demolish the property.

Woodhall said that this is an ongoing problem for the last few years. In October of 2019, he obtained an order to enter the home and when he went inside he noted severe dilapidation, bugs, trash strewn about, food on counter spaces rotting and much more. The occupant was ordered to clean up the messes and deal with the roaches then. The complaints about the property continued. Woodhall put a notice to remediate on the building and the notice was torn off and ignored.

Woodhall agreed with Hoblit saying that it was well past time for the neighbors to be relieved of this blighted property.
 

Wanda Lee Rohlfs asked if Woodhall knew what kind of cost would be incurred to clean up and demolish the property. Woodhall said he couldn’t estimate it accurately at this point. He said that there have been cases in the past where he personally has gone into a home and set off bug bombs to kill the roaches, then carried out all the trash. He said in this case that is not going to work. He felt the best solution would be to hire a profession exterminator to tent the property fumigate the entire place before entering for the clean out. He said that the professional service could cost as much as $8,000 to $10,000 and then there would be the cost of cleanup and demolition on top of that.

Steve Parrott wanted to confirm that Hoblit had said the property is occupied. Hoblit said, “We believe it is occupied by a person not authorized by the estate, but no one of the estate cares.”

Mayor Tracy Welch asked if the city had the authority to evict the person based on the state moratorium on evictions.

Hoblit said that there are allowable exemptions to the moratorium. Eviction can be ordered by the court based on concerns for public health and safety.

Rick Hoefle asked if the utilities were turned on at the property. Hoblit said he couldn’t say about electric, but he knew that the sewer is still active.

Welch asked what the next steps would be if the council chose to move forward. Hoblit said it would be a matter for the courts. He would go before a judge and seek an order to demolish. He said at that time the judge could also issue an order to evict the person living in the home.

Parrott asked Woodhall if he thought this was the worst situation in the city right now and Woodhall said yes he did.
 

Based on comments made by Sam Downs, it appeared that aldermen had received a written letter from the occupant seeking time to get the house in order. He mentioned that request to the full council.

Kevin Bateman said part of the issue was that the occupant has no legal right to be in the building and also owns another property in town they could move into. Downs said he was a little hesitant. He told the council, “There are two sides to every story.”

Parrot asked whose name the sewer bill was in. City Clerk Peggy Bateman said the bill is in the name of the deceased owner and is delivered to the Tremont Street address. He then asked if the bills were current. Peggy Bateman said that there is a balance due on the account and it may be on the list for water shut off. Once the water is shut off, the property can be deemed un-inhabitable.

Welch reminded the council that this is not a new topic, not the first time there have been issues. He said that due diligence had been done.

Hoefle said that perhaps the question should be tabled for the next committee of the whole. He noted that it seemed that Downs and others on the council needed time to do some research and investigation so they can make a decision.

Hoblit said he would like for the council to at least entertain a motion on forced remediation at the next voting session. That process could be started while the council determines if demolition is justified. Welch said he understood that the notice to remediate had already been done in the past. Hoblit said yes it had, but it would need to be done again as there is a process to go through including publishing the notice with a print media source.

At the Monday, July 19, voting session Downs made the motion to move forward with court ordered remediation and the second came from Parrott. The motion was to give the occupant 30 days to remediate. Rohlfs asked for an explanation of that order and the process.

Hoblit said that the order would state that the property was unfit for human habitation and the occupant must clean up the property or go to court. Rohlfs asked would the 30 days be from the day of the vote. Hoblit said the 30 day clock would start when the public notice is published. Rohlfs then asked what would happen if the occupant were working to get everything cleaned up but could not accomplish it within the 30 day time period. Hoblit said if there was evidence that effort was being made and would continue to be made, then the occupant might be able to have some extra time.
 

Bateman said that he knew that in the past week, several had driven past the property and had seen firsthand what a mess it is. He said he would amend the motion made by Downs to include an order to demolish.

There was some question as to whether the house actually deserved to be demolished. How did the council know what was the appropriate action or if the house could be saved. It was noted that Woodhall would need to go in and make an evaluation of the inside of the property and thus far he has not been permitted to do so.

Hoblit said that under these circumstances, the occupant will not permit entry, a court order would have to be obtained for Woodhall to enter.

Hoefle said that he knows there is a big problem with this property and the problem is spreading. He said that he saw a very nice ranch home close to the property that is now suffering from the migrating roaches. He said those neighbors are dealing with a problem they do not deserve.

Hoefle supported Batemans in saying that the building needs to go, but also said that it could be a case yet to be determined. If Woodhall were to go into the house and determine that without the infestation it could be made habitable, then the demolition plan could be dropped.

Woodhall agreed. He said that he knew remediation was needed sooner rather than later, but until he gets into the house he isn’t sure about whether or not the home will need to be demolished.

Hoefle asked Hoblit to confirm that an order to demolish could be reversed and Hoblit said that it could.

Bateman said his issue is that if the house is still there, the problem will come back again and again, and the city will always be dealing with it. He said he felt confident that the only long term solution is to get the person out of the house and tear it down.

Downs showed a solid reversal of his concerns from the week past, saying he agreed fully with Bateman and would offer the second to Bateman’s amended motion.
 

Parrott said he felt the council was on “a slippery slope.” He said it was concerning for him that the city is going to get the courts to say demolish when there is no certainty that it is needed.

Rohlfs noted that if the city goes in and starts tearing down the structure the bugs will quickly move to other places in the neighborhood. Woodhall said that in this case, there would be no demolition until the bugs and other vermin are annihilated. He said it had to be that way because this problem was just way too big to deal with in an ordinary fashion.

Bateman said tearing the house down was the best answer and he said, “Who are we saving it for? Every legal owner is deceased.”

Noting the person living there is doing so without permission, Hoefle asked about evicting on the basis of trespass. Hoblit said the city could not take that action because it does not own the property. Only the next living relative can do that, and that person just doesn’t care.

With some of the council still uncertain about the need to demolish the property, Welch noted again that the city could take all the necessary steps to complete the full process from remediation to demolition. Then, once Woodhall has been able to get inside and inspect the structure he can recommend demolition or not.

Hoefle said then the proper motion should be two fold, to order remediation plus demolition if it is determined to be necessary.

Bateman said he would offer a new amended motion to put the two step process in place. The council went through the proper parliamentary procedures of rescinding the first amendment, making a new amendment, voting unanimously on the amendment, then voting unanimously on the original motion “as amended.”

Hoblit and Woodhall will now move forward with the legal process of ordering remediation to get rid of the bugs, rodents and trash with possible demolition.

Remediation will be the first step then additional steps will then be taken if required in order to get the situation under control.

[Nila Smith]