Council Orders Fix To Downtown Safety Hazard

By VERNON ROBISON

The Progress

The Mesquite City Council approved an order last week requiring a land-owner to remedy unsafe conditions at a delapidated Mesquite Blvd. commercial property.

At the meeting held on Wednesday evening, Feb. 15, the Council officially declared deficiencies at the old, abandoned motel building at 151 E. Mesquite Blvd. These hazards included the presence of asbestos within the property, structural hazards, exposed electrical wiring, water damage, fire hazards and more. The order requires property owner Mathew John to “repair, abate or remove all of the deficiencies” within a 45 day period.

This was not the first time the matter had come to the Council. A hearing was commenced on Oct. 18 last year. It has been continued three different times since then to allow Mr. John time to bring in engineers and contractors, inspect the property and give estimates on what it would take to set things right.

John had originally expressed an interest in restoring and remodelling the vintage building so that it could be returned to safe use. But at last week’s meeting, he was proposing instead to demolish the building completely to solve the safety and health hazards.

John said that he had received a bid for the demolition work in the amount of $62,000. He added that he had applied for bank financing to complete the job and was awaiting an answer from the banks to move forward. Finally, he expressed interest in applying for Redevelopment Authority (RDA) funding to help pay for a portion of the work.

City Attorney Brian Pack explained that the RDA funding, under ordinance, would be eligible to pay up to 75 percent of the demolition costs. This would total RDA funding of around $48,000 for the project, Pack said. The remainder would be paid by the property owner.

Councilman Brian Wursten expressed concerns about using RDA funds, questioning the longer-term benefits to the city in this project.
“What worries me a little bit is that we are going to end up paying the 75 percent to get this demolished and then the owner sells the property and that is where the money ends up,” Wursten said. “RDA money is for trying to make the downtown look better. But by just demolishing it, I don’t think we are accomplishing that goal.”

But Mayor Al Litman said that this might be the most feasible resolution for this case. He said that he had met with John and a contractor asking what it would take to put the building back into proper order. “We were told it would be at least a million dollars,” Litman said. “So we are looking at something that is just not going to happen in all probability. You can’t get a return on investment for something like that.”

In response to Wursten’s concern, Pack proposed a possible solution that is available to the Council acting as the RDA board. He explained that state law governing the RDA would allow the issuance of an RDA loan which would have to be repaid.

“I know that isn’t a popular idea because we don’t want to get in the business of financing,” Pack said. “But frankly, I think the risk to the city on a loan of this kind is pretty minor.”

Pack explained that the loan would be paid back either when the property owner receives financing or when the property gets sold. “So it is actually a better solution, in my mind, than a grant,” he said.
Council members felt that this was an acceptable alternative.

But Council member Paul Wanlass emphasized that he wanted to see movement on the demolition. “This has gone on far too long,” he said. “I think at this point that 45 days is absolutely more than enough to get this off the ground.”

Wanlass said he wanted the item to be brought back to the Council at the March 28 meeting. At that time, John would need to have the funding lined up as well as a contractor set up with an absolute timeframe for the work to be done.

“If he lines all of that up, then we can extend him to get the work done,” Wanlass added. “If not and he doesn’t have it all in place, then we proceed with legal actions.”

Wanlass made a motion to issue the order immediately and give a 45 day window for it to return to the Council. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.