Councilor presses for documents after in-house teardown of long-vacant Razer building

David Smith, a council member, challenged city leadership on May 7 after the in‑house demolition of a long‑vacant structure on the Razer property, saying the council has not received promised documentation and raising safety and procedural concerns.

Smith said he had asked for information in February and repeated several questions at the meeting: who deemed the building unsafe, which engineering firm produced the assessment, when the demolition permit was filed and issued by the county, and why erosion and public‑safety controls such as a silt fence were not installed. "How do we go from not knowing anything ... to destroying public property?" he asked, saying city employees may have been put in harm's way without appropriate demolition training.

Mayor Burke responded that the removal had been included in the capital budget across multiple years and that work done in‑house saved the city roughly $48,000. "The council approved the raising of this building 4 different times in 4 different budgets," the mayor said, adding that the administration would locate the engineering report and provide it to council.

Several council members pressed for a copy of the report and for clearer documentation of the authority used to begin demolition. Smith asked whether an ordinance or resolution specifically authorized the action and whether the city complied with procurement thresholds and permitting requirements; the mayor and other respondents said the budget provided authorization for the work and that no outside contract dollars were spent for the demolition.

Councilors also discussed site controls and public safety. Smith asked why no fence had been placed to contain debris and prevent runoff, and questioned whether utility locates and lead testing had been conducted before demolition. Mayor Burke said the structure was an "attractive nuisance" and that it was safer and more economical to remove it than to repair it.

The meeting record shows no formal vote on the demolition action; councilors requested that the administration provide the engineering report, associated budget/ordinance documentation, and any permit records. The council also discussed using remaining budgeted funds for other needs such as streets or recreation, depending on final costs.

The council did not adopt new policy or direct immediate further action at the meeting; members asked staff to locate and circulate the materials Smith requested so the issue can be revisited if needed.