Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors weigh repairing or rebuilding courthouse cupola after repeated leaks
Summary
After repeated leaks and unsuccessful repair attempts, supervisors discussed contractor recommendations that the courthouse cupola may need removal and full rebuilding; staff were instructed to solicit comparative quotes, check warranty/contract remedies and return next week with specifications and guarantees.
Mitchell County supervisors spent an extended portion of their March 17 meeting discussing persistent leaks in the courthouse cupola and options for addressing them, including replacing the entire cupola structure. Board members said multiple contractors have examined the feature without providing a durable repair; one contractor reported structural/construction deficiencies and recommended removing and rebuilding the cupola to correct the underlying problems.
The county’s facilities staff and outside contractors described several attempted fixes, including caulking and localized repairs, but the leaks have recurred. A contractor referenced in the discussion, identified in the transcript as Kraus (also spelled Krause/Krauss in remarks), told county representatives removing and rebuilding the cupola might be the only long‑term solution and that doing the work correctly could take the contractor into the fall due to scheduling.
Legal and procurement concerns were central to the discussion. The county attorney cautioned about statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, and contract vs. negligence questions that could affect whether the county can seek remedy from the original builder; the attorney recommended obtaining bids and further investigation before initiating litigation. Supervisors asked staff to obtain additional contractor quotes, confirm what warranties or guarantees would cover the work, and return with comparative estimates and specifications.
Why it matters: The cupola is a visible, historic component of the courthouse and a recurring maintenance liability. Board members raised tradeoffs between a costly full rebuild with a contractor guarantee and repeat 'Band‑Aid' repairs that may provide only short‑term relief.
Next steps: Supervisors asked staff to: (1) solicit a new round of quotes (including Kraus/Krause for a comparative bid), (2) compile cost comparisons for repairing just the roof versus removing and rebuilding the cupola, (3) check warranty/contract remedies from the original builder, and (4) place a follow‑up item on next week’s agenda. No binding procurement decision or construction contract was approved at the March 17 meeting.
