Property owners in Newport told the Vermillion County Redevelopment Commission they want the county to permit them to demolish an eyesore building on the square and the commission agreed to obtain contractor cost estimates before deciding on sale or transfer terms. At the same meeting environmental consultants reported traces of dry‑cleaning solvents in groundwater near 155 West Extension Street, requiring further investigation before any final conveyance.

Jeff Simpson (a local property owner who said he recently purchased an adjacent building) told the commission he would obtain three bids and proposed the county split demo costs or allow him to take ownership if he arranged demolition. Commissioners discussed alternatives including selling the lot to the Simpson family under an agreement that Simpson would handle demolition and cleanup. Simpson said salvaged architectural pieces (arched windows) were available to family members by prior arrangement.

The commission concurrently approved a modest, informational payment to two local demolition contractors — Rasmus Demolition and E.S. Smith & Sons Excavating — to visit the Newport site and provide demolition cost estimates. Commissioner Kelly Somerville moved to offer $250 each to Rasmus and to E.S. Smith for site visits and a proposal; the motion was seconded and carried on a voice vote.

Environmental findings and next steps: consultants (Cindy, Chris) reported their Phase‑1/Phase‑2 environmental work identified a recognized environmental concern in the downtown Newport area: laboratory results show perchloroethylene (PCE), a solvent commonly associated with dry‑cleaning, in groundwater samples near 155 West Extension Street. The consultants said they did not detect elevated soil‑gas levels but did find contamination in groundwater at shallow depths; laboratory analyses showed asbestos and lead‑based paint in building materials as well.

Consultants recommended additional Phase‑2 delineation borings — including sampling in the brush/trees behind the building and potential borings inside the building footprint if demolition proceeds — to determine the horizontal and vertical extent of contamination. They said the likely remedy path includes a cleanup plan under available brownfield grants, and if the RDC or a future purchaser wants legal protection from future liability the standard mechanism is an environmental restrictive covenant or a ‘comfort letter’ (for a qualified prospective purchaser) that would run with the deed and limit uses such as drinking‑water wells and daycare operations on the parcel.

Commissioners said they preferred to obtain contractor proposals first, but that any property transfer would be conditioned on completion of the environmental work and an agreement addressing liability and cleanup obligations. Staff will collect the contractor estimates and circulate them to the board; the board also asked staff to coordinate additional borings and environmental delineation work before completing any sale or transfer.