the mobile home has since largely been demolished, although approximately half of its frame remains. The property also contains overgrown weeds and debris.
The problems at the property go back even further than the City’s initial 2024 notice.
Collins said Monday that despite some of the mobile home being removed, other portions remain and the property has not been cleaned up as required.
“If he refuses, which he has done so far, to clean it up, the City can clean it up and the cost of that is assessed against the real estate,” Collins said. “In addition, we have a judgment against him personally that’s incurring penalties every day, so his real estate could be sold by execution.”
Collins said the court has asked him several times what the City intends to do to enforce the judgment.
The council later went into closed session to discuss litigation. After returning to open session, council members voted to direct Collins to proceed with finalizing the judgment against Jessen-McGrath in the most expedient and economical manner.
The Jessen-McGrath property was only one part of a broader discussion Monday about properties that have generated complaints and whether Battle Creek has been doing enough to enforce its ordinances.
Resident Debbi Schulte approached the council about conditions at 305 E. Market St., telling council members she felt previous concerns had been brushed aside.
Mayor Heath Mettler said the City had been working with property owner Mark Schaefer and that the issue had not been ignored. Schaefer had been given a deadline to remove appliances and address other concerns, and some progress had been made.
The discussion soon moved beyond the condition of the property itself.
Council members learned Schaefer is undergoing chemotherapy for the third time, prompting a resident in the audience to ask whether the community could help him bring the property into compliance.
“Is there something we can do to help?” the resident asked.
The resident argued that enforcement and compassion did not have to be mutually exclusive.
“As a small town, that’s what we’re about,” the resident said. “Let’s find out the story. Let’s see what we can do.”
That suggestion prompted disagreement over when helping someone becomes enabling continued violations.
Schaefer was eventually asked whether he was comfortable having his health and circumstances discussed publicly.
“I don’t have much of an option at this point,” he said.
But council members also expressed frustration that some violations have continued despite warnings.
“The thing is, we sent out a letter asking people to clean up the yards and stuff before all this deal, and nothing’s been happening,” council member John Bomar said. “This is terrible. It’s uptown and like everything else. If we don’t enforce ordinances, we might as well not have them. We need to address the issues.”
A third property, at 103 W. O’Neill St., also came under discussion.
Police officials said repeated efforts have been made to get the owner to address conditions there. The council ultimately approved a motion directing police to proceed with putting additional pressure on the property owner to comply.
The discussion illustrated the different stages of property enforcement currently before the City — from determining whether a resident needs help complying with an ordinance to pursuing a judgment that has been in court for more than a year.
For Jessen-McGrath, Fleer said the court case itself came only after the City had already spent considerable time trying to resolve the property issues.
“We’ve been working on this for quite a bit longer,” Fleer said. “The wheels of government move slow.”
