Reno County officials weigh $700,000+ anchoring work for historic courthouse after insurer denies full coverage

County staff and outside engineers briefed the Reno County Commission on May 31 about additional change orders needed to anchor exterior limestone on the historic courthouse, after contractors discovered corroded steel ties when crews removed the dome.

Commission staff said an insurer's review declined to cover the full anchoring cost. Harlan, the project engineer who spoke with the commission, said some of the original steel ties had corroded or were missing and recommended installing new anchors to preserve the building over the long term. Harlan said the contractor submitted a proposal to anchor stones from the third floor up and that a contractor quote for anchoring the façade was about $698,000; staff and the county's local engineer, Brett England, have argued anchoring is prudent even if it is not strictly required by building code exceptions for historic structures.

Commissioners pressed for specificity on scope and cost. Harlan said staff are considering an alternative "grid" approach that would anchor only stones that can be fastened to solid concrete to reduce cost and avoid anchoring into hollow clay tile, which engineers said may not justify the expense. "There's a good chance that we have to move 4.2 [magnitude] shaking would cause more tuck-pointing but the anchors are intended to reduce cumulative mortar joint failures over time," Harlan said, summarizing engineer concerns about repeated seismic jostling.

County staff said insurance responded that it would pay to return the building to its prior condition but declined to cover work the county's engineers recommend to add new anchoring beyond the original construction. Randy (county staff) said the difference between insurer offers and the full contractor estimate could be substantial but that the county has reserve funds available if the commission chooses to proceed; he asked commissioners for guidance before the next meeting.

Several commissioners said they want more engineering analysis before committing significant additional funds. One commissioner said the county should avoid spending large sums "to anchor to something that can break and fall away" and asked staff to return with a more targeted, lower-cost proposal that anchors only to sound concrete where possible.

The commission did not approve a change order at the May 31 meeting; staff said they will return with refined scope, cost estimates and the engineer's recommendations at an upcoming meeting, and will continue attempts to reconcile the insurer's estimate with contractor pricing.

Ending

County staff expect to provide updated cost figures and alternative anchoring options at the commission's next meeting. Commissioners emphasized a desire for clearer engineering justification and cost-benefit analysis before authorizing large expenditures.