The old dairy building demolition

redd rover · Senior Member

RE: The old dairy building demolition

FarmWife · Member

Insurance Company is obligated to deposit percentage of benefit payout with the City Clerk, for debri clean up. Making deposit available for City, if the insured of the property does not complete repairs/clean up fire debris. Parameters follow,..

1. Estimated repairs reach a set limit, such as 70% of value or total loss.

2. Fire Lien is a voluntary participation by city, that has applied with Insurance Department to participate, which Ark City enrolled to participate.
Link: http://www.ksinsurance.org/industry/company/fireliens.htm

3. The "insured", receives the deposit only after repairs and/or fire debri clean up is complete.

4. Ark City's lien does not rollover to any property located in the County.

The City can look to the Insurance Carrier/Insured, for clean up bucks. If this was ignored, the City can raise heck with the two parties and notify the Insurance Department, P & C Division.

S23246G · Senior Member

In todays edition, in the article "City Starts Process of Demolition", it again states that the city taxpayers will be footing the bill for the demolition of the old dairy building. Nowhere in the article does it say that the city will seek reimbursement from property owners. Is this just an oversight by the author, or does the city not plan to seek reimbursement?

Then, in the same article, it states:

"Also at the meeting commissioners declared three residences dangerous structures. This is the first step in condemnation proceedings against abandoned and dilapidated houses in the city.

There will be a public hearing on March 20, when owners can give the city a plan to address the problem or tear the structure down. From there the city will have another hearing before ordering the demolition of the house, and the owner will be billed for the work.

Is there a double standard here? Or has the author of the article simply failed to mention that the city will seek reimbursement for the demolition of the old dairy building. Moderators... Traveler writers?... anyone?... can you shed any light on this?

S23246G · Senior Member

Let me try to understand this... Why is it the responsibility of anyone except THE OWNERS OF THE BUILDING to have it torn down?

From "City may tear down old building" AC Traveler 2-05-07

"The bottom line is that the city will have to eat (the demolition cost)," said Gary Ford, one of the owners. "It's a crying shame. I've tried to give it to (the building) to the city several times for them to use it for the college, but they aren't interested."

WHY??? Why does the city (taxpayers) have to eat the demolition cost? If I read the article correctly, the owner TRIED to give the building to the city... but the city didn't want it, so why in the hell should the city (and by that, I mean us taxpayers) have to pay to have it torn down? Didn't the owners get an insurance payoff when it burned? I think so, because I remember thinking it sounded fishy at the time. And now they want US to pay to tear it down.

The taxpayers sure as hell didn't get that insurance money, so why should we have to pay to have it demolished. (if I'm wrong, and the taxpayers DID get that insurance money, mine must have been lost in the mail... please forward!) If the owners HAD managed to sell it to the interested party in the last 30 days, do you think that money would have gone anywhere but in their pockets?

Mayor Patrick McDonald said today the commission faces a tough task how to finance the expensive demolition work.

"It's going to cost a fortune," he said.

Rough estimates by two companies interested in doing the work are $130,000 and $250,000, McDonald said.

"That's a lot of money and the city hasn't budgeted for that," he said. "We have to do more looking to try to find out how to handle

Why are our city leaders agreeing to pay to tear this building down? Is there something I don't know? Since when do we taxpayers pay to demolish buildings owned by private citizens when they become a hazard? Someone please explain this to me, because I am very upset by this.

Patrick · Senior Member

I'm a little slow at getting caught up on these things, but I'll do the best I can.

The owners of the old dairy building hired an engineer to give them a report on the possiblities of the structure, if they could just put a new roof on it, do some minor construction, or what they could get by with. The engineer reported back that the only safe way to rebuild was to tear it down to the foundation and rebuild. The expense was too much for the owners to consider.

Once the engineering report became public the city took on liability for the property. Even though the owners were responsible, the city knowing the possible dangers, could also be held liable for millions of dollars depending on the situation. Being in a residential area, with a school so close, and the number of times someone had broken into the building, the city's liability was enormous. The city's policy in this case is to grant the owners time, usually 30 days to begin to repair or demolish, and if they do not meet the deadline the city demolishes the structure and charges the owner for it. The work was bid out so the city could get the best price (note: local contractors can still win the bid if they are within 5% of the low bid), and completed as quickly as possible.

If the city does not react, the insurance company may not be able to cover. In that case whatever the damages might be would be paid for out of taxes. It is necessary for the city to follow this procedure to avoid the necessity of raising taxes for not other reason than to pay damages.

The city then charges the owners for the demolition costs. The amount is usually more than the owners can handle or they would have taken care of it. After a period of time, if they aren't paid, the charges are converted to an assessment against the owner's property or properties and billed with their taxes. The original owner still has possession of the land. If it is not paid the county can eventually sell the property for the back taxes and assessments and the proceeds would be divided up to cover the individual debts to the county and city. If this does not cover the amount owed, the city would assess the difference to the original owners other properties. It is a long process.

The Traveler is well aware of this process and just didn't get it into the article. Representatives of the Traveler asked me about it specifically. It would have been nice for them to have addressed it here.

I hope this answers some questions.

Patrick McDonald
Arkansas City Commissioner