Jefferson City officials have filed a civil suit against a Jefferson City woman who owns at least 16 properties that have violated the city's nuisance code.
The suit, filed Dec. 4 against Barbara Buescher, cites the city's nuisance code and states that "if the nuisance is within the city limits, the expense for abating the property may be assessed against the owner of the property."
City attorney Drew Hilpert said the suit seeks reimbursement for all costs to the city for securing Buescher's many properties throughout Jefferson City. The suit lists 16 different properties owned by Buescher that required city action.
"We're filing suit on all the tax liens that she owes us for," Hilpert said. "That's without any interest that's accrued, that's just our cost."
According to the suit, the city is seeking $49,774.80 total through 19 different counts. Hilpert said normally, these types of costs are recouped when the building is sold, but "that doesn't seem likely" in this case.
"We basically want public funds back," Hilpert said.
Hilpert said the suit does not seek ownership of Buescher's properties, but he noted that "once you get a judgment against someone in circuit court, there is a possibility of forcing a sale of real estate as a collection method."
He said if such a judgment is entered, the city could, and likely would, seek the forced sale of one or more of her properties.
The suit details locations of the properties, the state of disrepair they have been in and what the city had to do to secure each building.
In January 2012, the city spent $454 to secure open doors and windows at a property owned by Buescher in the 100 block of Jackson Street.
For another Buescher property on Jackson, the city incurred $137 for abatement proceeding costs in September 2011. On that same property in February 2012, the city did an asbestos inspection at a cost of $332 and in April 2012 they removed asbestos at a cost of $23,809.
At another Jackson Street property, the city spent $300 to cut vegetation in July 2012 while at another the city spent $776 to secure windows and doors in December 2013.
At a Buescher property in the 400 block of East Capitol Avenue, the city boarded up windows and doors at a cost of $645 in December 2013 while at another Capitol Avenue property the city spent $970 to board up windows and doors in January.
At two Buescher properties in the 100 block of Adams Street, the city boarded up windows costing $805 in
January.
In February, the city spent $845 to board up windows and doors and paint boards at a Buescher property in the 100 block of Jackson Street.
Another Buescher property in the 400 block of East Capitol Avenue required the city to paint as well as board up windows and doors at a cost of $440 in February.
A side door needed to be boarded up on Buescher property in the 100 block of Jackson Street and cost the city $120.
More boarding of windows and doors occurred at a Buescher property in the 400 block of East Capitol Avenue in March for a cost of $485.
Cutting and trimming a yard along with boarding up and painting a Buescher property in the 500 block of East Capitol Avenue cost the city $815 in June.
Cutting, trimming and cleaning up the backyard of another property in the 500 block of East Capitol cost the city $285 in March.
To remove brush, vines and weeds at two Buescher properties in the 100 block of Jackson Street, the city spent $725 and it cost the city $575 to do the same thing to a Buescher property in the 400 block of East Capitol and $325 for one in the 400 block of East Parsons Way. All these occurred in August.
At another Buescher property in the 100 block of Adams Street, the city demolished the structure at a cost of $17,000.
The suit states Buescher has not produced payment for any of these services, nor has she agreed to a payment plan.
As of Monday, no attorney information was listed for Buescher on Casenet.
Reached by phone Monday afternoon, Buescher said she had no knowledge of the suit and, according to Casenet, she had not been served the papers as of Monday.
Correction: The original version of this article incorrectly stated papers had been served. The text above has been corrected to reflect they had not been served as of Monday.