BLOOMFIELD, Mo. -- The Stoddard County Commission at their regular meeting Monday approved an option for limited alterations and restoration of the cupola in the old courthouse which included replacement of the wooden louvers.
Architect Dale Rogers, with Robert Stearnes and Associates, presented two options for work on the courthouse cupola using a $70,000 historic preservation grant with a 30 percent matching amount from the county of $30,000. The first option did not include louver replacement, and the second did. The cost opinion of the two options by Rogers was $69,754 for work without louver replacement and $83,813 for the option with replacement. Architectural fees of just over $27,000 would be added to the cost opinion. Rogers noted that the total of the option replacing the louvers would be around $11,000 over the amount available.
Rogers said that the work included removal and replacement of the floor sheathing, reinforcement of the arch framing, replacement of spire support and reconnect rods, replacement of the wood headers, replacement of several flashings, wall panels and repair/attachment of soffit/cornice, among a detailed list of repairs and costs incurred to do the work. He said replacement of the louvers and adding screens would stop water intrusion into the cupola and also keep animals out.
Rogers said the work did not include application of a new water sealant coating to the cupola, as that would go significantly over the funds available. He said that could be done in another phase of the restoration as funds become available.
Presiding Commissioner Greg Mathis said he would support using the option that included replacement of the louvers, even if it meant going over budget by $11,000.
Rogers said his projections were only an "opinion of cost" and the actual project could be more or less.
Members of the Stoddard County Historical Society were present, along with grant writer, Kathy Skelton.
Commissioner Danny Talkington asked if the wooden louvers would have to be replaced with wooden ones.
Rogers said that historic preservation grants required that the building be restored to its original appearance. The courthouse was built in 1909. He said it was possible other materials could be used as along as it maintained the original appearance. He said other materials may make the project somewhat less costly. He said he had talked with a contractor in Kentucky who does a lot of historic courthouse restorations, and Kentucky allows some substituting of materials. He said he would check with Missouri officials about that.
Commissioner Carol Jarrell said there was some money in an Industrial Development Authority (IDA) account that was raised for the courthouse restoration. She said maybe that money could be used if the amount went over funds available from the grant.
Mathis said the amount was only around $1,000. Moore said it was more like $3,000.
Mathis told those present that he had watched television coverage about the cost of restoring the courthouse, and "I thought it was a terrible story."
"It was not fair," said Mathis. "A little consideration would have gone a long way."
Mathis said he thought the commission and Rogers should have had input to explain why the amount was greater than originally estimated by the Historical Society. He said he contacted an individual and a company in Boonville to look at the courthouse. Both looked, but neither would give the county a cost estimate.
Mathis said Rogers was brought in to talk with structural and electrical engineers to get a cost estimate to do the project correctly. He said Rogers was also able to design the work in stages so that it would be done as ongoing projects as funds were available.
Jarrell made a motion to proceed with the option including louver replacement, and Talkington seconded it. It passed by a 3-0 vote.
Skelton asked Rogers if he could provide her with a second project phase on the courthouse so that she could make another grant application. She said she needed it quickly because the deadline is Sept. 11.
Rogers said he prepared a cost opinion broken down into phases, and distributed it to all concerned.
Skelton said the maximum amount of the grant was $70,000 with a 30 percent matching amount. The second phase was more than that amount.
Rogers said he was unaware of the $100,000 maximum. He said the scope of work presented in the first grant application was well over what could be accomplished with $100,000. He said he would look over some options and get them to Skelton by the end of the day or by early the next morning.
Skelton said she didn't know if that would allow her enough time to get the grant written by the deadline. She said she would try.
Skelton said if the project was not funded in this round, the application would let state historic preservation officials know the scope of the project. She said they could apply again if there is another round of grants, and there would be more time to prepare the next grant application.