Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners clarify reimbursement resolution and discuss rising demolition costs
Summary
A commission question focused on an 'intent to reimburse' resolution that would allow future loan or bond proceeds to reimburse prior county expenditures for three projects, and commissioners queried rising demolition costs including a $63,000 bid.
Get email alerts on the County Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
During public comments and the agenda discussion at the June 25 Beaver County Commissioners meeting, a commissioner asked staff to explain an "intent to reimburse" item on the agenda and raised concern about high demolition costs cited in the packet.
A commissioner asked, "Can you explain 46 better for me? This whole reimbursement thing. This intent to reimburse." County staff responded that the county is considering obtaining a loan or bond to provide funds that could be used to reimburse costs already paid from the general fund for three projects: new roofs for the magistrate and community development buildings; the Asbury Park building project; and what staff described as a previously approved roughly $6 million contract for 911 tower upgrades. "If we were to go to get this loan that we would need something to allocate the money that would be spent prior to getting the loan us essentially reimburse the county for it," staff said, describing the purpose of the reimbursement resolution.
Earlier the same discussion period included concern about demolition line items. "I noticed we have two demolitions, and demolition costs are going up. They're doing a $30,000 $63,000 demolition. That seems high," a commissioner said. County staff noted that commercial demolitions are more expensive and that Act 152 funds have limits that affect how much can be paid from that program; bids are solicited for demolition work.
The transcript does not record a roll-call vote on the reimbursement item separately; the solicitor later recommended approval of resolutions 062526-01 through 062526-59 and the bundle was approved by voice vote, which would include the listed agenda items.
The board did not assign follow-up tasks on the record during the meeting. Commissioners approved the bundled resolutions and routine agenda items during the same session.

