Ravalli County commissioners voted May 9 to decline insurance-paid historical replacement-cost appraisals for county buildings, including the county'owned old courthouse museum, after a staff presentation on options, costs and coverage implications.

County risk staff and an insurance consultant told the board that the county currently insures buildings based on a statement of values and a blanket policy that can supply additional funds if replacement-cost estimates are short. Fred, a county staff member who discussed the appraisal materials, said a historical replacement-cost analysis is intended to estimate the higher cost of rebuilding historic features (for example, copper trim or marble stairs) and would increase insured values for those buildings. He said, "If we lost the old courthouse museum, would you wanna try and replace it as it is, rebuild it as it is, or would you maybe build another museum somewhere else?" and framed that decision as key to whether the county should commission a historical appraisal.

The county received a form from Mako (the county's insurance appraisal partner) asking by a mid-May deadline (the notice in meeting materials cited May 14) which buildings should receive historical reproduction-cost appraisals. Fred said appraisals are done on a targeted basis and that contents coverage is handled separately under the county's blanket contents coverage. He also said, by example, that an increase in appraised value would raise the county's premium: "if the appraisal came in a million dollars more... it would cost you about $3,000" (Fred).

Commissioners also discussed who prepares and maintains the statement of values. Fred said his assistant, Kelly Tennell, maintains the county's statement of values and that Mako and county staff jointly update items, using prior appraisals where available. The board examined the statement of values during the meeting and asked for further detail about differences between replacement-value and covered-value entries for several buildings.

A motion was made and seconded during the meeting to decline payment for any historical reproduction-cost appraisals. The measure passed unanimously: each commissioner present voted "aye." After the vote Fred said he would tell Mako the county's direction and that the county could request historical appraisals later if it changed its mind.

Why this matters: a historical replacement-cost appraisal would increase the insured value of an historic building and could lead to higher premiums; it also affects whether the county would have enough insurance funds to rebuild an historic structure to its previous materials and details if it were destroyed. County staff emphasized that contents (the museum artifacts) are separate and, according to Fred, the historical society carries contents coverage for items it owns.

The board asked staff to provide a clearer statement of values and to meet with the insurer and county staff after Memorial Day to review coverage details. Fred offered to meet with commissioners the week of May 27 to walk through the statement-of-values spreadsheet and the appraisal process if the board wished to revisit the issue.