Final costs expected soon on Depot Street project

Thursday, April 2, 2009
By Brian Mosely

Final figures on the total costs of last year's demolition of buildings on East Depot Street should be ready next month so that the city will able to seek recovery costs through litigation.

The building at 113 E. Depot was damaged last year during the demolition of 109 E. Depot, which was considered a dangerous structure, and contractors and engineers said at the time it would cost over $200,000 to repair it and bring up to code, so the council voted to tear it down as well.

The city intends to file a suit against Alice Albrecht, the owner of 109 E. Depot, to recover the costs of the demolition and damage to adjoining businesses, which is running close to $224,000.

However, city manager Ed Craig said the figures for the demolition costs have still not been finalized due to an unresolved issue with a damaged central heat and air unit belonging to Nancy June Brandon, which Craig described as "cosmetic damage."

The heating unit is 20 years old and parts can not be found for the model. Craig also said the city was also waiting to see what the costs will be for repairing a stone wall owned by Brandon.

City attorney Ginger Shofner said she can not go forward with any litigation against Albrecht until all the figures have been made final.

According to figures given to the city council, tearing down 109 E. Depot cost $65,620, while the purchase of 113 E. Depot from Wayne Hix cost Shelbyville $82,502.

Demolition of that structure cost the city an additional $42,067.88, which included stabilizing the adjacent roof system. Building a party wall for another adjoining building cost $20,895.64.

Site restoration materials ran $1,295.87, and labor and equipment for the job, which included 90 city worker man hours, cost Shelbyville $5,387.40.

Damage totaling $3,470 was done to a heating unit owned by Hix and there was also damage to an awning owned by Jennifer Jordan, costing $358.37, including four city worker man hours.

Also, there was damage to an electrical meter and riser behind Dancy's totalling $253.22. Legal costs to date over the matter have totalled $2,128.

Comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on t-g.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

CLAP CLAP CLAP !!

Very well done.

All this for private property owners who apparently have no responsibility.

$82,502 for 113 Depot St.?? Very well done again.

Previous published reports here showed the building to have a value of just over $40,000.

Sure must be nice to spend all day running around seeing just how much tax payer money you can spend AND getting paid to do it.

Parts for ANY 20 year old piece of equipment can be found. Who ever is working in purchasing just needs to find them, that is part of their job.

I wonder if they even bothered calling the mfg? and if the mfg didnt have them asking which ones of their distribution would likely still have them? Or calling ANY of the local shops for recommendations.

-- Posted by BobM on Thu, Apr 2, 2009, at 4:11 PM

Am I to understand from this story that the property owner will be sued for the total cost of demolition on both buildings, when in fact the second demolition was obviously due to poor judgement on behalf of the city-hired contractor? The contractor's insurance should pick up for this EXPENSIVE mistake or the contractor themselves should come out of pocket on this one.

How can demoltion of a property cost more than the value of the property? It is apparent from the trouble the contractor caused with the second structure, as well as all the other damage mentioned, that they were not worth the amount charged.

-- Posted by ghostrider on Fri, Apr 3, 2009, at 4:37 AM

What's this I hear about a fraudulent inspection?

And.. Is it true the problems with the building and the owner's inspection request were actually reported to the city in November 2007 around the time the bricks started falling off the front?

If so, then why did the city inspector wait until the renter was evicted in March to finally do that inspection? How much worse did the building get from November to March? Was it salvageable in November, but too deteriorated by March?

Did the renter really refuse the city's demands for admittance the whole time?

-- Posted by Lex4990 on Fri, Apr 10, 2009, at 8:00 PM

Lex4990,

Guess you should go to city hall and ask the inspector about it.

-- Posted by Brett Favre on Sun, Apr 12, 2009, at 4:28 PM

I hear that chair refinishing lady who was supposed to fix up 109 Depot, never paid any rent. And she took the money she was given for repairs and supplies (along with not paying rent) and bought herself a house instead.

-- Posted by Lex4990 on Wed, Apr 15, 2009, at 9:31 PM

-- Posted by Lex4990 on Wed, Apr 15, 2009, at 9:33 PM

-- Posted by Lex4990 on Wed, Apr 15, 2009, at 9:34 PM

Some are saying that.

-- Posted by Brett Favre on Thu, Apr 16, 2009, at 7:35 PM