Council members warn Cox Powell Building poses safety, financial risk as developer misses deadlines

Council members sharply questioned the status of repairs and redevelopment for the Cox Powell Building, saying the city faces safety risks and possible financial liabilities after two fires and limited developer responsiveness.

The discussion centered on whether the city should terminate the lease with the current developer and demolish the building if redevelopment does not proceed. Councilor Harris urged immediate action, saying the structure “could fall at any time” and recommending termination of the lease and demolition if necessary.

The matter matters because the building sits in downtown and councilors said public safety and potential liability are immediate concerns. Council members also discussed past city investments in the project, including a $500,000 grant or purchase-order set aside for redevelopment, and questioned whether those funds — and any contributions from a foundation or the county — would need to be returned if the city tears the building down.

City staff and councilors reviewed the site history in response to repeated questions about structural safety and code enforcement. The mayor said the city, the county’s RBO representative Chris Randalls, the city building official and the fire department inspected the property and that structural engineers have looked at the building during the redevelopment process. The mayor told council members that siding and some issues fall clearly under the building code, where appeals go to the state, while other property-maintenance violations may be appealed to the city’s Board of Zoning Appeals, giving the city more control over enforcement and timelines.

Councilors pressed for evidence that the remaining building (referred to as 459) is structurally sound. Councilor Harris said no structural-engineer report was shown in the meeting materials and called the building a “huge liability.” The mayor responded that professionals on site did not express concern that the building was not structurally sound but acknowledged the record lacked a clear structural report for council to review.

Councilors also discussed lease provisions. Council members said the lease contains default provisions (including an apparent failure to provide required insurance certificates) and a clause allowing termination by landlord or tenant no sooner than the one-year anniversary if a real estate purchase agreement and a development agreement have not been executed. Several councilors concluded the developer has defaulted on the lease. The council debated whether to terminate the lease, require immediate fencing and remediation, or move to emergency demolition.

Councilors asked staff for specific next steps: documentation of any structural-engineer or CBO (city building official) reports, confirmation of whether required insurance certificates were provided, a timeline for fencing and site security, and a legal review of default and termination options under the lease. The mayor said he had invited the developer (identified in materials as the firm that applied for historic tax credits and later took control in July) to meet with council but had not received a response.

Councilors cited a recent emergency demolition of a nearby wood-frame building that cost the city about $34,000 and said similar costs and risks could apply if the city must act on the Cox Powell Building. Multiple members said they would prefer redevelopment but urged a firm deadline and clearer documentation from the developer before committing more time.

No formal motion to terminate the lease or demolish the building was recorded in the transcript; council discussion ended with multiple requests for staff follow-up and continued invitations to the developer to appear before council.