Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities Demolition topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board reviews demolition cost estimates for Henry R. property and two Southern Central structures

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sullivan County school officials reviewed contractor estimates to survey for asbestos and demolish a house, garage and two school‑adjacent structures; no formal decision was recorded.

The Sullivan County Board of Education reviewed contractor estimates to survey for asbestos and demolish a house and garage on Henry R. Road and two structures behind Southern Central Middle School.

Board chair Chairman Price summarized the contractor—stimate, saying the vendor provided a combined scope: "for Henry Hart to completely provide an asbestos survey and then demolish and remove the house, garage, and that building's there, that would cost us $21,650," and that demolishing the two structures behind Southern Central would cost $11,440. Price said the two Southern Central structures could be done separately or grouped together.

The figures were presented by staff member Bill (name on the record: Bill) after the firm—onducted site visits at both properties. Board discussion focused on options for the parcels: demolish now to eliminate safety hazards, retain the land and seek offers, or defer action. One board member said retaining the property argued for demolition of unsafe structures to avoid liability; another said the board had previously leaned toward keeping the parcel and asked that staff retain flexibility.

No formal motion or vote on contracting for demolition appeared in the meeting transcript. Board members discussed splitting the work so the Southern Central structures could be removed without approving the Henry R. Road work, and indicated they could return at a later meeting for a formal decision.

Board staff noted the quote could be broken into separate scopes without changing per‑unit pricing. The board did not adopt a binding procurement decision on the record during this session; it did not instruct staff to award a contract in the transcripted portion.

The discussion will likely be revisited on a future agenda, where staff may present a formal contract recommendation and procurement language.