The marble courthouse on Main Street is in “adequate condition” with no significant faults uncovered by a engineering company according to the findings presented Friday.
The assessment was made as the Courthouse Advisory Committee continues to ponder renovation and expansion plans for the building in the center of downtown.
Representatives from MACTEC Engineering fielded questions from advisory committee member during their August meeting Friday. The MACTEC engineers generally answered that they didn’t see anything that would prevent the building from continued use.
MACTEC Project Manager Lee Walton said the “initial level surveys” uncovered no surprises and was straightforward. He said if they had found anything suspicious they would have recommended further study, but that was not the case.
Another MACTEC engineer noted that for a building of its age, the courthouse is “in pretty good shape.”
A third representative of the company, who handled contaminant issues looking for asbestos and lead-based paints, said it would be safe to assume there was some asbestos in the places where it is usually found in building of that period. He noted pipe insulation and the felt behind marble and ceiling tiles most likely contained the substance now considered hazardous. But he said they could proceed with construction/renovation being aware that standard procedures for dealing with removal of asbestos and other hazards will be needed. This would not present any unusual challenge to the project, he said.
Responding to some specific questions, the engineers said their surface examination found the marble facade to be in good shape and appeared securely fastened in place.
They noted it would be an expensive undertaking to remove a panel to check the brackets that are assumed to be attaching the marble to the concrete structure, but they didn’t see any reason to do this.
“At this point, based on the observations, we don’t see any faults in the structure,” Walton said. “If we did, we could take off a panel and do further tests.”
There are some places where cracks appears between panels, but this is due to the grout being worn away, not from the panels shifting, according to the engineers.
The concrete used in the structure appeared to be of the proper type and in good condition based on core samples.
Commission member Frank Martin questioned the need for a load bearing study on the walls. Project coordinator for the county Tom Eubanks, said the preliminary plans only call for expanding to the rear of the marble portion of the courthouse, not adding any levels so the load-bearing information may not be necessary.
Martin said knowing whether they can add levels to the current building could determine future plans and thought they should get tests to determine if adding levels could be an option.
Responding to a question from committee member Mimi Jo Butler, the MACTEC engineers said there is mold in the basement area, but it was simply an issue of stopping the humidity/leaks and cleaning the mold, nothing that would derail the project.
The MACTEC report noted that in addition to the building’s obviously historic exterior, there are some details in the interior of the building that are historically significant as an example of architecture of the time period when it was built.
Sales Tax collections continue to lag
The committee also heard a report and discussed the impact of the lagging sales tax collections on the project.
When originally proposed in 2007, the county projected collecting $34 million in sales tax over six years. Of that, up to $17 million could have been used on a courthouse.
But as the committee heard Friday, the lagging economy since that time has ruled out the chances of collecting that amount.
At Friday’s budget they discussed the need to ratchet down costs and look at lower projections. No one gave any projections or discussed a new price range but all who spoke said they recognize the need for something considerably cheaper.
Chairman Sanford Chandler said no one can predict what the economy will do and it would be in their best interest to look at other options.
Collections under the current SPLOST are being used pay off debt on the County Admin building and will be used to pay off debt from the jail construction, an item on the previous SPLOST.
Chandler noted that it is important to come up with a realistic budget. “Now we are paying on a 2003 debt (the jail),” he said. “The question is do we send it down the pike again?”
Eubanks also sounded cautionary on future budgets. He said sales tax will the primary funding source for the courthouse, but if they borrow now against future collections, the county taxpayers will be obligated to make up any shortfall.
“We have to be careful about setting the budget,” he said. “It would be easy to draw something at $13 million and then only collect $10 million.”
Butler also expressed concern about obligating the county to payments.
County Financial Director Mechelle Champion, who presented the SPLOST update, said when they have plans and a budget, the county can look at financing options.
There was further discussion about the tier system used with the SPLOST. In it, the county must finished tier one projects before they can spend any money on tier two items. This means that the county can spend now on the debts on the admin building and jail and for courthouse renovation, but may not allocate any sales tax revenue from the SPLOST for the parks or library, until the courthouse is considered complete.
Martin asked if the tier two projects would expire. The response was they would not expire, but there may not be funds left over after the tier one projects are complete.
In other business:
Need for timelines discussed
Committee Member Miller Andress asked the committee to develop a timeline of how they could proceed from this point.
Andress said even before they get plans and a budget “squared away,” there are things that they can be do preparing contracts and preliminary work.
“We need to establish timelines so we’ll know what we should be doing,” he said. “Otherwise time will be gone.”
Martin seconded the idea saying, even if they aren’t governed by them, having established goals is necessary.
Parking report delayed again
Saying to “trust us,” Mimi Jo Butler, who chairs the parking sub-committee, said they were not ready to discuss the outcome of some research and planning. She said they need the commissioner’s input. The report was first scheduled to be released in July.
See video of the meeting at www.knowpickens.com. A copy of MACTEC’s “overall executive summary” document is available for download.
|
|
