Suwannee County commissioners agreed by consensus on Sept. 4 to escrow $300,000 for repairs to the county courthouse dome and $100,000 for the historic train depot roof, and authorized staff to pursue a piggyback contract to expedite the work. Mr. Scott, a county staff member who presented estimates, told the board the dome repair estimate is about $321,000 and the depot roof estimate is about $100,000.
The county’s preservation options are constrained by competitive Department of State historic-preservation grants and by National Historic Registry requirements, Mr. Scott said. Those grant programs typically require upfront funding, certified preservation plans and historically accurate materials; meeting the requirements can extend project timelines by two to three years and increase costs, he said. Mr. Scott recommended using a piggybackable contract the school board has used to speed procurement, and commissioners agreed to that approach.
The decision matters because the courthouse dome is a prominent historic feature of Suwannee County and work done under historic-preservation conditions may require specific materials and craftsmanship, adding cost and time. Mr. Scott advised the board that if it pursues Department of State grants, the county would likely have to pay costs up front and that reimbursement is not guaranteed. He also said the dome’s copper covering would need replacement and that related work could require coatings to prevent galvanic corrosion with the underlying roof.
Commissioners discussed alternative materials and the trade-off between historical appearance and cost. Commissioner Hill asked whether copper was the only option; Mr. Scott replied that materials must be “aesthetically correct” for historical standards but that alternative products that mimic copper could be explored. Commissioner Perkins and others emphasized the courthouse’s symbolic value and supported doing the work to preserve the structure’s appearance. The board’s finance staff indicated the requested funds could be placed in escrow and applied as bids and final numbers arrive.
Staff also briefed the board on logistics: the recommended contractor (O’Neil) can scaffold and has local equipment, which staff said reduces mobilization risk and could simplify follow-up if problems occur. The board asked staff to pursue the piggyback contract and to return updated numbers if bids or scope change. Mr. Scott cautioned that pursuing grants could increase engineering and review costs and prolong the schedule, while doing the work under the piggyback contract would be faster but still require specialized craftsmen.
Public commenters raised millage and stewardship concerns during the hearing but did not alter the board’s direction on the dome and depot funding. The board’s consensus to escrow the amounts leaves staff authority to proceed with procurement under the piggyback arrangement and to apply leftover funds across the two projects if one comes in under estimate.