Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boonville staff says city demolished two dangerous houses after owners failed to abate conditions
Summary
City staff told the Boonville City Council it began demolition at 806 and 810 3rd Street after property owners missed deadlines in a consent order; asbestos testing showed no deficiencies and staff offered records to media. Councilors discussed distinctions between building permits and dangerous-building orders.
Boonville staff reported that demolition began earlier that day at 806 and 810 3rd Street after property owners failed to meet deadlines in a prior consent order. The staff member said the council had authorized the city to remove structures that remained dangerous and that the city followed inspection and permitting steps before proceeding.
"We have documented documented information that this was agreed upon," the staff member said, describing the April 21 consent order that required abatement of dangerous conditions by a specified deadline. Staff said the property owner had asked for extensions and that the city granted one week in August for the owner to obtain a building permit and abate dangerous conditions by Sept. 4; subsequent inspections on Sept. 15 and Oct. 21 showed the required work had not been completed.
After the latest inspections, staff said it contracted GIM Environmental to sample the structures for asbestos and submitted results to the state Department of Natural Resources; those samples showed "no deficiencies were found," and the city secured proper demolition permits before initiating work. The staff member offered to provide documentation to media outlets and said the city would disclose records upon request.
Councilors asked whether the city had a funding strategy for any Phase 2 remediation if contamination were found; staff replied that prior asbestos assessments had been negative and that, if remediation were required, the city could seek additional grant support or handle remediation as a city expense. The staff member emphasized the legal distinction between a building permit and compliance with a dangerous-building order, noting a six-month permit did not satisfy the abatement requirement under the consent order.
The council did not take a separate vote on the demolition report during the meeting; staff characterized the city's actions as completion of an enforcement process begun with a consent order, inspections and notices recorded in meeting minutes.
The councilor who raised media concerns asked whether the city should proactively release information; staff said he could draft a written release and that the city was willing to share records to clarify the timeline and the basis for demolition.
