Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition And Grant Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Bernard CIC weighs demolition options, grant funds to preserve retail tenant
Summary
The St. Bernard Community Improvement Corporation discussed whether to demolish the bank building only or separate the three-unit retail strip to retain an existing tenant after receiving contractor bids and two grants that together could cover the work.
The St. Bernard Community Improvement Corporation spent the bulk of its meeting weighing whether to proceed immediately with demolition of the First State Bank building or to split the planned work so the three adjacent retail units could remain occupied.
Board members reviewed bids submitted by the demolition contractor and the timing and constraints tied to two awards of public grant money. The contractor’s base bid to remove the bank and related work was discussed as $266,000; a set of alternates that would include separation and shoring for the three retail units would add roughly $81,800, board members said. A village-administered grant of about $339,000 and a separate award of roughly $458,000 to the CIC were cited as sources that could cover the combined expense, though members cautioned that the grant terms and reimbursement timing must be reviewed before committing to the alternates.
Why it matters: board members said keeping the retail tenant in place could preserve income and reduce vacancy, while bifurcating the demolition could affect grant eligibility and invoicing deadlines. Staff and members emphasized two separate benchmarks: completing building demolition and submitting invoices for reimbursement. The county-level grant must be fully dispersed by the end of August, the board was told.
Board members sought legal and procurement clarity before making a final decision. Village council previously authorized entering into a $266,000 contract with the demolition contractor; additional council action would be required to approve a supplemental agreement for the extra work if the CIC chooses that route. Several members asked staff to confirm whether issuing a contract now — with alternates reserved — would allow the contractor to begin utility prep and EPA notifications while the board decides on the separation.
On timing, the board agreed to a short decision window. One member proposed a 30-day cap to determine whether to proceed with the alternates so the village can continue permitting and the contractor can begin preparatory work without undue delay.
The board did not vote on an immediate change to the contract during the meeting; members directed staff to verify grant restrictions, confirm bid expiration with the contractor, and report back at the next meeting.
Next steps: staff will confirm permit flexibility, invoice and reimbursement timing with county staff, and advise whether the alternates would jeopardize the grant. The board expects an update at its next regular meeting.
