Sumner County staff outline $410,000 restoration estimate for historic county house, seek GenOps review

Sumner County staff told the county meeting that a preliminary plan to restore a county‑owned historic house would cost about $410,000 for construction work, with $100,000 set aside for potential log replacement, and that staff will bring a refined package to the county's GenOps process in early July.

The matter matters because the building is county property and the restoration approach will determine how much of the house's historic fabric can be shown to the public, what maintenance and accessibility upgrades are required, and whether the county must contract an architect or meet state code requirements before work begins.

Staff described the work as a mix of structural log repair, exterior chinking removal and replacement, selective brick demolition to reveal original logs, and interior finishes. "We're just trying $410,000 for the work," a county staff member said during the discussion, and staff said they had placed "a hundred thousand dollars in there" as a conservative allowance for log replacement because some window openings will likely require removal and replacement of full-length logs rather than splice repairs.

Staff reported the building footprint as roughly 1,500 square feet on the main level with about 600 square feet upstairs. The proposed budget line items cited in the discussion included: $100,000 for log repair/replacement, $6,000 for floor refinishing or limited replacement depending on direction, and a separately estimated metal‑roof option (discussed in previous materials) of about $18,000 for a new roof plus $8,000 for demo if the county chose to replace the existing metal roof. Staff said the county currently has roughly $500,000 set aside for the project and that, to date, the draft estimate is about $140,000 under that overall sum.

Several technical questions drove the budget uncertainty: staff said the house's exposed logs vary in width (commonly 8 inches but in places 16–24 inches), that the existing chinking is concrete rather than traditional mud or lime mixtures, and that some window openings likely cut through full log sections. Because of those conditions, staff advised a conservative contingency for log sourcing and replacement and recommended sequencing work so the largest unknowns (log removal and window re‑exposure) are addressed early.

Staff also discussed whether an architect is required under state or county rules. The group referenced Tennessee law and the county's own construction and renovation policy (adopted in November) during that exchange; a county staff member said projects above certain thresholds typically require architectural involvement and advised checking with legal and compliance teams. Staff asked legal to confirm whether an architect is required in this specific case, and said they would seek clarity before finalizing bid documents.

Community and interpretive uses were discussed as part of the scope. A meeting participant who identified themself as a local parks staff member said, "I work at Douglas Park, so it's having a space that you can hold more than, like, 3 people in with just from an interpretive perspective would be great," underscoring that the county sees the house as both a small public exhibit space and an educational asset for nearby schools.

Staff outlined near‑term schedule items and next steps: they requested detailed materials for the county finance office by the week of June 16 (square footage, refined line items and alternate options) so staff can produce a cleaned‑up package for the GenOps committee in early July. Staff also noted the building is insured and that additional exploratory work (e.g., sample wood to a lab to confirm species, selective brick removal to confirm log condition) could be performed within the current limited remaining assessment funds.

What was not decided: there was no formal vote to adopt a final design or contract at the meeting. Several options remain open (retain some modern finishes, do limited interpretive exposures, or pursue more extensive restoration to original window placements and wide‑plank floors), and staff said they need county guidance on how closely to pursue historic authenticity versus cost and functional flexibility.

Next steps for the county are: confirm architect/permit requirements with legal and compliance; provide the finance office revised cost options and square footage by the requested mid‑June deadline; and present a final GenOps package for committee review in early July, after which any requested budget amendments or procurement steps would go to the full board.