In an ongoing struggle to have property owners clean up their property, Meta aldermen at their Jan. 8 meeting agreed to send another round of letters warning those in violation of the nuisance ordinance that a lien would be placed against their property.

“I’ll sign them,” said Mayor Harold Libbert. “It won’t be the first reaming I’ve gotten.”

“Maybe that will scare them into cleaning it up,” said City Clerk Deidra Buechter.

“I think you’re being optimistic,” said Alderman Otto Wankum.

“Maybe we should throw a high fine on it,” said Alderman Lawrence Hoffman, as the city’s current ordinance states the city may charge between $25 and $500 for nuisance violations. “We can tell them we’ll charge them $500 to cut their grass.”

There is a hearing process involved as outlined in the ordinance, which allows property owners 10 days from the date of notification to request a hearing, which must be held within 30 days.

If the property owner does not request a hearing, the city is free to proceed with the provisions of the ordinance. In the event the city finds reason to enforce the ordinance, the property owner would have seven days to abate the situation.

If that is not done, the property owner relinquishes and waives any rights to the items removed to abate the nuisance. This typically applies to derelict vehicles and similar items, but whether it applies to houses is something Buechter wants to confirm.

“I’m fine with going forward, I just want to be certain,” said Hoffman.

Buechter said Ordinance #337, adopted Sept. 13, 2006, adheres to Missouri statutes and should be applicable.

“It seems as though we could go ahead and cut their grass,” said Buechter, noting the maximum height in the ordinance would be seven inches, and other municipalities charge for the service, one assessing a fee of $154 per hour.

That’s after a notice is sent to the property owner warning of the cutting, charges and a lien against the property.

“She said they have a lot of luck with that,” said Buechter of a city clerk with whom she spoke. “About half the people finally just said, ‘take it, we’re done,’ and the other half cleaned up their property. Some of these Missouri state statues are talking about health and safety of your residents and that’s why you should keep those nuisances to a minimum. This ordinance touches base on a lot of those things.”

Hoffman noted there are two properties currently in poor shape. “If we told them we were going to do this, and tell them we’ll fine them $100 until they take care of it, no one is going to take care of it, because no one owns those houses,” he said. “So at that point do we take care of it?”

Aldermen agreed that some of the properties may be owned by a bank or lending institution, and the original owner may not be involved.

“We can, and then we can charge them,” Buechter replied. “We can place a lien on their property for that.”

“How do you guys feel about doing this?” Hoffman asked maintenance employees Kenny Loethen and Mitch Stumpe.

“A lot of these places, it’s going to take a lot to clean them up,” Stumpe said, adding one property is especially bad. “You’re not going in there with just a lawnmower. There’s brush, no windows left in the house and the roof is falling in.”

Stumpe added that in Jefferson City, there’s a house slated to be demolished because the owners didn’t take care of it, and asked how that would be handled in Meta.

That was a good question, which led to others. Hoffman asked if in order to mitigate the hazards and bring the property up to speed, would the city have to replace windows?

“The city shouldn’t have to replace them,” said Libbert.

“My question is do we just fine them and if they don’t remedy the situation, we just keep telling them about it?” Hoffman asked.

Alderman Steve Sherrell, who served on the board when properties were in disarray, shed some light on how the situation was handled.

“Schaben came to us and said he would tear them down if we let him have the property,” said Sherrell. “We went to the owners and they turned them over to us because they didn’t want to mess with them.”

Sherrell added that the structure to assess fines was not in place at the time, so the best the city could do was tell property owners to address the nuisance.

“He tore one of them down, and now it’s full of brush,” Libbert said.

Sherrell explained that there was a plan to purchase the surrounding property, but the owners wouldn’t sell.

“There are a couple other places with houses burned down, and they didn’t do anything with them,” said Libbert.

Sherrell said one property in particular will never be brought up to speed.

“So are we going to fix the situation or just fine them and wait for it to be sold on the courthouse steps?” Hoffman asked. “What’s the next step?”

Buechter suggested contacting an attorney to find out how enforceable the ordinance would be because the city’s ordinance says demolition is an option if the property owner does not abate the situation. Fees for demolition would be assessed to the property owner, which would then result in a lien, but Buechter said she wasn’t sure how the city would recoup its costs.

“Even if it’s in our ordinance, would we be in trouble for doing that?” Buechter asked. “Would we be in trouble with the state?”

Wankum asked if the city were to tear down a house under a nuisance ordinance, would the city then own the land?

“We won’t own that land unless they sign it over to us,” he added. “Am I wrong?”

Speculation centered around the idea that if the city does indeed clean up derelict property, and files a lien against the property, the owner could still come in with a mobile home or sell the land, which would be much easier if the lot is cleaned up.

“There’s nothing we could do to prevent that,” said Wankum. “That’s what bothers me because we don’t have a final remedy for it.”

“We could refuse water service,” said Hoffman.

Sherrell quickly pointed out that these property owners won’t be motivated by a lack of water service since they no longer reside there.

“I don’t know how we get from telling you your house is falling down to just tearing it down,” said Hoffman. “I could see where we fine someone for having their grass too tall, and have these guys go in there and knock it down. It’s not a big liability to the town. But if we’re talking about a big window that needs to be fixed, are we going to just send letters and fine them or are we actually going to fix it?”

Some properties are located near the city limits, and Sherrell called it a “disgrace” to drive into Meta and see them.

“Any way you look at it, the city is going to get stuck with cleaning them, and it’s going to cost thousands of dollars to make their property look pretty until it’s sold,” said Libbert.

Wankum noted there was a time when the city had an opportunity to tear down properties in violation of the nuisance ordinance, and city residents would have paid just $500 for the action.

“We even offered to pay that for them,” said Hoffman.

“I know, and guess what we got? Zero,” Wankum said of responses from residents.

Stumpe said in many cases, the property owners don’t live in Meta, and are not aware of how bad the situation has become. “They don’t care,” he added.

By ordinance, the city is allowed to appoint an ordinance enforcement officer, or the mayor can take on that role.

A pertinent question was posed by the mayor. “How much taxpayer money do you want to spend on tearing old stuff down when we could be building bridges and everything else?”

“It looks like crap for people coming into town,” said Wankum.

Stumpe suggested speaking with representatives from other communities to see how they handle such issues.

Sherrell said there are four properties currently in violation, and one of the safety issues is the fact that residents have reported an influx of copperheads on their property.

Buechter said she thinks some of this might fall under the purview of the state health department, and asked if that would be an avenue to pursue.

For now, the city will wait to see what kind of response is generated by the letters.

In other business, the city received a favorable audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2019, from Gerding, Korte & Chitwood, a CPA firm based in Boonville.

The audit showed the city ended the fiscal year with a net position of $643,838, including the following fund balances: General ($395,046), Motor Fuel Tax ($45,952), Capital Improvement ($126,784), Water Tower ($43,078) and Park ($32,978). General revenues for the year were $202,940 and expenditures were $148,754, with transfers of $40,000. With a balance of $549,652 to start the year, Meta had a gain of $94,186 in its net position.

* The board approved licenses for the following businesses: Bemboom Enterprises d/b/a Bee Line Snack Shops, D-Best Storage, Detail Doctor, LLC., Diamond Pet Foods, Erica’s Child Care, Fancher-Rekus Funeral Homes, Inc., Hairs to You, LLC, Institute for Environmental Heath, Inc., Libbert Construction, Loethen Construction, Inc., MFA Exchange - Meta, Mid America Bank, Royal Oak Enterprises, Schanzmeyer Home Improvement, Sew-JC Creations, Shelter Insurance, St. Thomas-Babbtown Mutual Ins. Co., Southwestern Belle Telephone Co., Stimulus Technologies of Missouri, Studio M Portrait Creations, TELLCO, LLC, the Hair Company.

* Aldermen approved an ordinance to allowing for the provision of electricity by Ameren Missouri for street and outdoor lighting within the city.

WATER UPDATE

* As of Dec. 31, a total of $2,654.41 in water sales were recorded in the month, with $1,064.92 charged for trash, $32.01 collected in county tax, and $42.79 collected in sales tax. Total charges were $3,794.13 with a previous balance due of $644.76 and payments received in the amount of $4,998.80, and $20 in credits, leaving an overage of $579.91.

FINANCIAL NEWS

In her regular monthly financial report, Plassmeyer noted that total available cash on hand  was $797,578.43, according to Mid America Bank statement dated Dec. 31, 2019. This includes including two certificates of deposit, one in the amount of $51,581.28 and another with a balance of $121,185.84, the latter renewed for another six months after a vote by aldermen.

With a beginning balance of $497,780.09, income/deposits totaled $21,761.21 and debits totaled $35,377.12 for a balance on hand of $484,164.18 in the operating fund; the money market balance was $139,737.13; and the escrow account totaled $910.

* Aldermen approved an ordinance amending the budget for the current fiscal year, which included a transfer of $65,000 for the new meters from the general account to the water fund for contracted services.

* The next meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m. Feb. 8.