Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beaver County reports tank project complete, weighs mapping and asset‑management work
Summary
Commissioners heard that the tank and associated pump and control work are complete and functioning; staff said about $175,000 remains in contingency, recommended reactivating GIS mapping (estimated $6,000–$10,000) and discussed a $50,000–$70,000 asset‑management plan if the county seeks new drinking‑water funding.
Beaver County commissioners were told at their Nov. 14 meeting that the district’s tank project is substantially complete and operational, and staff proposed several next steps to capture project value.
Kyler, who presented the update, said the new tanks, springs, pumps and controls are in place and “we have 2 new pumps that we switched out” to improve system fit and performance. He told the board that most contractor payouts have been made and retainage is being processed; staff estimate about $175,000 in contingency funds remain available for improvements, subject to confirmation by the funding agency.
Why it matters: those contingency dollars could be used to finish remaining items identified during construction or to meet new funding conditions. Kyler said he’s trying to confirm with the funding agency whether remaining funds can be reallocated or must be applied as part of the original loan terms.
Staff also recommended reactivating and updating the district’s GIS mapping so recent as‑built improvements and field observations are attached to assets on the map. Kyler gave a ballpark estimate of $6,000–$10,000 to restore licensing and incorporate project updates and said it would be possible to include one or two years of subscription costs in the project if the board chooses. He added that an Esri (ArcGIS) laptop license runs roughly $700 per year and that there is an additional maintenance charge in the low hundreds.
The presentation also noted a potential path for using contingency dollars to prepare an asset‑management plan, which Division of Drinking Water reviewers now expect for new funding applications. Staff estimated a full district asset‑management plan would cost roughly $50,000–$70,000; the board discussed fronting that work with contingency funds and seeking reimbursement through future grant or loan applications.
On contractor performance, board members raised concerns about schedule overruns and workload. Kyler said staff had negotiated with the contractor and, in the interest of closing out work, had waived certain penalties to facilitate completion and payment.
The commission asked staff to return with written cost proposals for GIS licensing/reinstatement, a scope and price for the asset‑management plan, and confirmation from the drinking‑water funding agency about allowable uses of contingency funds. The board took no final funding action at the meeting.
Next step: staff will email formal price quotes and a recommended use plan for the contingency funds for board review before the next meeting.
