Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Facilities Structural Evaluation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners approve plan to request a structural evaluation of the courthouse and discuss capital-planning grants

2844637 · February 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff and an outside engineer proposed a structural evaluation of the aged Daniels County courthouse to scope repairs and enable grant-seeking; commissioners directed staff to prepare a short task order for an inspection report, with estimated on‑site fees of roughly $3,000–$5,000.

Daniels County commissioners discussed the condition of the 1950s–1970s courthouse building and directed staff to solicit a short task order for a structural evaluation. County staff said the building shows localized scouring, abutment lean on a nearby bridge, and cracking around foundation and basement areas; the structural consultant who has worked in the region indicated a site visit and short report could cost in the range of $3,000–$5,000 depending on travel and the scope of the inspection.

Staff explained that a structural evaluation (sometimes described as a focused structural assessment) would document the building's timber members, foundations, settlement and cracking, and would then produce a short recommendation list and order‑of‑magnitude repair costs. Commissioners said having a formal report would support grant applications, including historic‑preservation funding through the state historical society and MSIP/MSAP planning grants. Staff recommended reserving a larger preliminary architectural report (PAR) only if the county decided to pursue a full building rehabilitation/stage, noting a PAR could run $30K–$50K.

Commissioners directed staff to prepare a one‑page task order to bring the structural engineer to Scobey for a site visit and report; staff said the consultant could coordinate with local contractors and seek cost‑effective repair options if a repair program is developed. No contract was executed at the meeting; commissioners said they wanted the task order on the next agenda to approve the engineering inspection and to consider grant strategies once the report is completed.