Building restoration specialist to assess Logan County Courthouse

 

[May 23, 2019] 

At the Logan County Board meeting on Tuesday, May 21st, the board voted on whether to move forward with having Bill Walter of Lima, Ohio, begin looking into what is needed to restore the courthouse.

Walter’s proposal totaled $99,885 to be completed in three phases. Walter is giving the county a $5,550 discount since the actual total for the three phases is $105,435.

At the special meeting held Monday, May 13th, board members and several county employees heard from Walter, a building restoration specialist who owns Masonry Restoration Technologies and Services.

Like his father before him, Walter has been in the restoration business for many years and enjoys getting buildings back to what they once were. He has worked nationwide and projects have included the Indiana State Capitol Building, Ellis Island, The Federal Reserve Bank, and the Hancock Building, Providence Hospital and the Wrigley Building, in addition to four courthouse projects in the last two years.

Walter holds numerous professional affiliations, extensive education and certifications, and is part of President’s Advisory Council on Masonry Restoration.

Building and Grounds Chairman Dave Blankenship contacted Walter about “a unique courthouse with minor, major and perplexing issues” and they discussed what it would take to put the courthouse back in serviceable condition.

Last week, Walter took a tour of both the inside and outside of the courthouse and went up to the dome area to get an idea of the problems. He said the structure of the dome has great bones. He also looked at the steps, sandstone and windows to get an idea of what is needed.

Having worked on several other courthouse projects, Walter said he looks at each project from a different vantage point and remembers when everyone associated with a project was on a team with the goal to get the project done. Now it seems to be opposing sides at times with good news and bad news.

This project reminds Walter of the fun and satisfaction of projects from different times. He said the courthouse is something with “phenomenal potential” and the interior is outstanding because you can stand in the rotunda and look everywhere or speak and hear the echo from the dome.

Tuesday, there was more discussion and questions about the project and its costs.

Board member Scott Schaffenacker asked about the project management costs, which will depend on the ultimate size of the project, but will range between two-and-a-half and five percent of the total costs of the project. Schaffenacker said “For argument’s sake, let’s pick $5 million at five percent and $2.5 M at two-and-a-half percent. That is a range of a quarter million dollars to $62,500.” He said it is hard to budget for the amounts.

Walter said there is a “sliding scale” and the range will depend on the scope of work chosen to be done since some of it requires higher level involvement. He makes a higher percentage the lower the amount is, and the higher amount means a lower percentage for him.

Walter can multitask and fees would be less if work is done in less time. He has work structured to accomplish the maximum for the same amount of money.

Walter said more needs to be ascertained about what needs to be done and the board can negotiate, decide what to do and be on the low side percentagewise. What the board is now abiding by is the initial outlay and Walter said the fee for project construction management can be decided later.

In the first phase, Walter would be doing a thorough site investigation, which would include reviewing the condition of the dome, exterior sandstone façade, windows, doors, entrance steps, basement and the courthouse’s current energy system. There would also be inspection of the concrete and mold testing, and any remediation planning needed.

Phase two would include roof inspection and consultation, HVAC inspection and consultation, scaffold consultation, interior spaces architectural work, and group coordination and planning.

Phase three includes specification and bid document preparation, pre- and post-bid dates and management and project management.

Since Walter may unveil other problems and issues as he looks further, he said some costs can be decided then.

The time frame for the project depends on how much restoration is approved since there are several issues. Walter said it could take eighteen months or longer and weather will be a factor.

Board member Chuck Ruben asked about outside funding sources. In the proposal Ruben said he saw no experts listed in looking for funding from the federal government and asked about whether the county should find someone who can find funding.

The proposal is tailored around energy savings and HVAC, and Walter said he would collaborate with an energy group to figure out needs.

There is a staggering list to investigate of what is available for funding. And Walter said every time he has worked on these projects, he has been successful in finding entitlements, grants, tax credits or low interest loans. The government allows funding to help with energy efficiency credits, but he would explore everything available that appeals to people.

Walter can find out needs and rewrite that section of the proposal to find out financing available.

In his courthouse project in Sydney County Ohio, Walter said they got a low one-and-a-half percent interest loan to cover the balance of the total project costs after energy credits and entitlements from the state covered about 35 percent. That project costs $2.3 M and Walter said they probably got $600,000 in tax credits and entitlements.

Walter said some funding is tailored around energy savings. A company would look at energy losses. The Energy Systems Group would work with Walter to help “determine the very best and optimal heating and cooling systems for this particular structure.”

Ruben said another company had already looked at energy losses, but looked at one building and found the savings to pay for it were not there.

Blankenship said he has not seen any projections or reports with regard to the savings. Though told they had the most energy efficient air conditioning system, Blankenship said he disagreed with those findings. He has seen structures like the courthouse and said across the industry, it is not unusual to experience 30 to 60 percent (energy) savings with the right system.

Walter said the average savings are about 40 percent.

As far as getting a loan, Ruben said a low interest loan would not help when the county has no extra money in the budget. They took a $600,000 loan for the major criminal case bond, and that is roughly $50,000 a year. Another bond is $48,000 a year and the county is barely able to maintain these bonds.
 

Blankenship said he understands the tight financing, but can the county afford not to do something? He is concerned over whether the board wants the courthouse to continue deteriorating and asked about other counties with equal or worse finance issues.

Board member Bob Sanders said doing everything basic is what got the courthouse in this mess and we cannot let it go any longer because it could cause more problems. Though he understands the money issues, Sanders said it would cost more in the long run if not fixed. Water leaking on breaker boxes and people’s safety is at stake, so there is a need to get work done as soon as we can.

Walter said other counties have found they are too poor to be cheap. They kick the can trying to accomplish things in a hurry and if you consider all the money they spent doing that, they would probably have a “formidable amount” to do the project correctly. If doing work, Walter would do it right, not looking back later and his approach would be encompassing.

There are still some “dramatic unknowns” as far as the dome and concrete flooring, and Walter said once they have been quantified and qualified, he will know costs. The costs may be high, but Walter cannot get money without providing answers. The county can get money just for replacing the windows and Walter will know more when he discovers what will be needed window wise from an energy savings standpoint.

Board chairman Emily Davenport asked about why the windows in the courthouse that were replaced about seven years ago may need to be fixed or replaced.

Windows may meet minimum energy standards, but Blankenship said they are not foam injected or well-insulated. Derrick Haynes, who does courthouse maintenance, said a few windows are leaking water, other windows are broken and most need to be duct taped to keep heat in.

From a structural standpoint, Walter said the windows were good at the time they were put in, but to be considered for tax credits and entitlements, windows must “meet certain disparity parameters” between the energy expended now and the energy you are going to save. Walter said the windows at this point are like a screen door on a submarine. To replace them is not a deal breaker cost-wise since it would net energy savings results that would help qualify the county for tax credits.

Though the windows are not that old or bad, Walter said they could be better from an energy efficiency standpoint of insulation, airtightness and water tightness. If significant energy loss is discovered, he would track and find what is lost and how thermal efficiency would make it better.

Regarding energy efficiency, Blankenship said it is wise to stay with current energy standards and utilize some of the best products and technology. He said specialists help avoid pitfalls.

Walter said if you install a system with the ability for interchangeable components, these systems can be modified later by just interchanging a few components when technology changes. Energy experts can help figure out what to do and look ahead months and years.

Some have suggested using a singular energy system, but Blankenship said with such systems, if one part goes down, the whole facility is down. He supports the use of multiple systems to achieve maximum efficiency because other parts of the system can pick up the slack if one goes down.

In considering who would do the construction, Schaffenacker asked whether Walter used the same or different contractors for the three other courthouse projects.

Different contractors were used for each project, and Walter said he tries to use local contractors when possible. He hired local contractors for the project in Sydney County, Ohio. Walter’s goal is to incorporate local talent and he can recommend contractors, but the board would help decide who to hire.

Davenport asked whether they can just pay for phase one at this point and Walter said phase one would get the board further knowledge-wise.

Sanders said we do not need to cut corners but need to make an informed decision and Walter is an expert in the field.

Board member David Hepler agreed with Sanders and said going with Walter would likely be a good investment since he has a good reputation and his studies could help the county qualify for some funding.

Without being able to provide answers, Walter said he has never been able to get money, so he wants to be able to show what the money is needed for. Walter’s goal is to have the building outlast all of us and he wants to see phase one meet everyone’s approval so he can move on to phase two and phase three.

There is a cost savings in doing all three phases if that is the direction the board wants to go, but Ruben said the next step of funding would be a problem. He is not sure where the money would come from, but Ruben said some could be taken out of the criminal cases and courthouse park and maintenance fund.

The state of Illinois is working on supplying all county and local governments with a substantial amount of money for fixing up their buildings, which Walter said could be a major contributor for this project. Until they find out what they need to ask for, Walter said some amounts are not known. He would rewrite one segment of the proposal to clarify what means and finances may be available.

Board member Jim Wessbecher asked about where the money from the state is coming from.

Brenda Clark, one of the board’s administrative assistants said Governor Pritzker’s budget and the Capitol Bill allows for both state and county buildings to be renovated.

The Capitol Bill has been out there for a while, but Ruben said specific money needs to go in for counties, but the flow has not been toward counties. Contacting state representatives could help.

If a referendum goes on the ballot again, Sanders said the information Walter brings forward would help make the public a lot more informed.

Wessbecher asked how the board should proceed since they are not informed about what is needed yet.

Blankenship asked Walter if he would add information about funding sources to his proposal to help.

After the discussion, the board unanimously approved Blankenship’s motion to move forward on working with Bill Walter.

[Angela Reiners]