Lincoln City Council
Council struggles to approve structural work at 129 S. Sangamon Street

 

[February 03, 2025] 

The Monday evening Lincoln City Council voting session, after much debate and a few attempts at amendment, a motion to provide “wall shoring and rehabilitation of (an) exposed wall for the building at 129 South Sangamon” was approved by a vote of six to two. Six aldermen voting in favor of the final motion included Kevin Bateman, Sam Downs, Robin McClallen, Rhonda O’Donohue, David Sanders, and Wanda Lee Rohlfs. Those who voted no were Craig Eimer and Steve Parrott.

The evening began with a motion to approve an amount not to exceed $60,000 for the project that would include “flowable fill” a faster drying concrete for the base of the building foundation, then filling in holes in the wall, tuckpointing, and exterior painting.

When the motion was made and seconded, Eimer was the first to express an opinion, saying that he was completely against the motion. He said that the estimate included $20,000 for the flowable fill that in his opinion, based on his personal experiences as a building owner, was not needed. He said that the foundation of the building could be shored up with heavy clay dirt that the city already has and would be just fine.

By way of history, the structure at 129 S. Sangamon is now an exterior wall building after the fire and subsequent demolition of the two properties to the south. According to the city Building and Zoning Officer Wess Woodhall, the wall that is now exposed to the elements was never meant to be an exterior wall. The building in question is currently for sale and may very well be sold in the next few weeks. Woodhall’s position that it was in the best interest of the city and the new owners to fix the wall properly was met by opposition from Eimer and several questions from other aldermen.

Eimer also objected to the exterior painting of the building, saying that no one knows for sure what the new owners are going to do with the building, and it was a waste of taxpayer dollars to do that much work.

Eimer’s original suggestion was that the council table the motion and look at modifying the work order.

Parrott questioned whether the new owner might be eligible for the city backed improvement grants for façades but was told by Mayor Tracy Welch that a façade grant would not apply in this case. At the same time, Welch said the new owner might be able to apply for a structural grant, but the city maximum pay out on those grants is only $7,500.

Rohlfs wondered about liability issues in both directions, if the city did do the work, and if it did not. City Attorney John Hoblit said that there could be a waiver of liability added to the contract that would be signed by the owner.

Bateman said that it is for the good of the community that the city take the initiative and repair the wall and the foundation. He said that the building is in his ward and his constituents have reached out to them with their concerns not only for the security of the building but also for the way it currently looks.

Eimer said that the building has been condemned and that it is filled with water. Woodhall was asked to verify the water, and he said there was no water in the building.

Eimer also questioned the amount of money in the motion. He said the original figure for all the work had been $48,600, but now it had gone to $60,000. It was explained that Bateman had asked for the $60K so there would be adequate contingency funds for unexpected issues once the work started. Bateman said with the $60K “not to exceed” clause, it meant that the company would not have to stop work and come back to ask for more money.

Eimer continued to argue against the flowable fill and asked Woodhall who had suggested that material. Woodhall said he personally had asked the structural engineer on the project if that would be the best, and the engineer had agreed that it would be. Eimer took that to mean that Woodhall had made the suggestion, and the engineer had gone along with it, Woodhall said that was not the case, that the engineer had said the flowable fill would be the best method of shoring the building.

Rohlfs asked if the dirt would cost money or was it something the city had. Street Superintendent Walt Landers said that the city had used a lot of the dirt to fill in the holes in the new empty lot and he wasn’t sure there would be enough to do the building shoring. He added that his concern would be whether the dirt could be added and “tamped down” appropriately. Eimer would later say that it did not need to be tamped down at all. He said that his experience on a building in mt. Pulaski had been that dirt was added and when that settled more was added.

Rohlfs said she felt that the city should be reaching out to the owner of the property to see if they would take on this project or at least a portion of it. She said this was a safety issue and a structural issue and the owner should be concerned about it too.

There was additional discussion about how this all came about. The two buildings south of 129 S. Sangamon Street had burned, and the owner said he could not cover the cost of demolition, so the city was going to have to take it on. The bid for the demolition had been $210,000. Fortunately, there was insurance involved on that property and the city collected just over $100,000 thus making the city’s out of pocket for the demolition only $109,000. Because of this, the proposed $60K was covered based on the original budgeted amount for the demolition.

Regardless, Eimer said that the work being quoted was not needed. He said that “brick is brick” and it didn’t matter if the wall was formerly an interior wall. He also asked if anyone knew for sure that the wall had always been an interior wall. He and Woodhall were losing patience with one another by this time. Eimer asked Woodhall which was built first the buildings now gone or the one still standing. Woodhall said he had no way of knowing which more than 100-year-old building had been built first. Later it was stated that the engineer had verified that the south buildings were built first, in the late 1800s.

Another comment that was made was that if the city did not do what was needed to stabilize the exterior wall, it could fail and then the city would have yet another building in town that needed to be demolished. Eimer commented that there was no way that wall was going to fall. He said it was brick one foot thick, and it was not going to come down any time soon.

Woodhall said that because it has always been an interior wall, there has never been dirt pushed up against it from the side or lateral. He said that the engineers had warned explicitly not to let heavy equipment work in that area because of or for the sake of compaction that would stress that newly exposed wall.

After a lot of debate and discussion, Eimer made an amended motion to remove the flowable fill and exterior paint from the project and permit only filling holes with mortar and tuckpointing. The motion was seconded by Steve Parrott. That vote failed with Bateman, Downs, McClellan, O’Donohue and Sanders voting no and Eimer, Parrott and Rohlfs voting yes.

The next amendment involved the $60K total. The council discussed how that typically a bid will include ten percent for contingency. The base cost of the project is $48,600 so the $60K was well above ten percent. The motion was amended to reflect a more acceptable contingency with the not to exceed price to be $53,570. That amendment passed by unanimous vote.

Another amendment was proposed regarding liability. The ask was that there be a “release of liability” signed by the owners prior to beginning the work. That motion passed seven to one with only Eimer voting no.

Finally, the council was asked to vote on the motion as amended. For clarity – the motion as amended included doing the flowable fill, filling holes, tuckpointing and exterior wall painting, with a new amount “not to exceed $53,570” and contingent upon the property owner signing a waiver of liability.

When that final amended motion came to a vote it passed 6 – 2 with only Eimer and Parrot voting no.

[Nila Smith]