Beaver City hears insurer: city center damage could yield roughly $1.4M if demolished or up to about $2.9M to fully rebuild, adjusters say

Beaver City Council on Monday, March 10, heard from insurance adjusters about water and storm damage at the City Center and were presented three principal options: demolish and accept a lower payout, repair and rebuild the damaged sections and accept code-upgrade costs, or pursue a full replacement to pre-loss condition.

The council met with adjusters from the insurer and a claims representative who reviewed the statement of loss and explained how replacement-cost value (RCV), actual-cash value (ACV) and code-upgrade allowances are handled. “This is kind of our initial starting point, which should be the vast majority of everything,” the adjuster said while reviewing the estimate prepared for the city.

Why it matters: the council must choose how to use the damaged school-shell portion of the City Center. That decision affects how much the insurer will ultimately pay, whether code-upgrade funds are payable, and whether the city will need to allocate additional money for improvements the insurance will not cover.

Adjusters described two broad payment buckets: the RCV (what it would cost to return the building to current standards, including replacement of materials) and ACV (replacement minus depreciation), plus a separate bucket for code upgrades the city would incur and be reimbursed for only after those costs are actually paid. The adjuster said the insurer already has issued interim payments for immediate needs and demolition work and that additional supplements are under review.

On likely amounts, the adjuster described a full rebuild estimate in the neighborhood of the high millions (the team discussed an RCV figure the adjuster said could total roughly $2.9 million once all supplements and engineering fees are included). As an alternative, the insurer described a demolition payout and prior interim payments that together sum to about $1.4 million already paid or payable if the city elects not to restore the building to its prior condition. The adjuster also said a modest additional payment (a depreciation release) for the heated, in-use portions of the building — roughly $17,000 — will be paid when that work is completed.

The adjusters emphasized that certain parts of the insurance payout are conditional on the city incurring the work. “At the end of the day, the building is yours,” the adjuster told the council, noting that if the city decides not to rebuild or to change the building’s footprint, some elements of the estimate (for example, required code upgrades) may not be payable.

City staff and council members raised planning questions: whether to salvage exterior walls, how code upgrades (for example, elevator or fire‑suppression requirements) would affect costs, and how future material‑and‑labor inflation could change the ultimate settlement if construction is delayed. Staff and council also discussed practical matters such as outstanding invoices to the demolition contractor and whether to proceed immediately on roof work to limit further damage.

Next steps: council members asked city staff to arrange a follow-up meeting with the insurer’s adjusters and the city attorney to get estimates under three explicit scenarios: (1) leave the site cleared (demolish and take the ACV payout), (2) demolish and build a new recreation facility on that footprint, and (3) restore the existing building shell and repair it plus required code upgrades. The council also discussed holding a public community open house in April to present the three scenarios to residents and gather feedback before making a final decision.

The discussion did not produce a formal binding decision; council members instructed staff to schedule the follow-up meeting with the insurer and to return with updated numbers for the options the city is considering.