Bee County court votes to apply for Texas Historical Commission emergency grant to address moisture, mold in historic courthouse

Komatsu Architecture told Bee County Commissioners Court on March 26 that the county's historic courthouse is suffering multilayered moisture intrusion, plaster delamination and mold growth — conditions the firm described as sufficiently serious to qualify for an emergency grant from the Texas Historical Commission (THC).

Marie Olereen, Komatsu’s preservation architect, said the firm’s visual assessment documented widespread issues in the brick masonry, failing windows and HVAC ducting that allow humid attic air into conditioned spaces. “Mold growth, moisture intrusion is not great to health and safety of staff and the public,” she said during the presentation.

Komatsu recommended a phased approach: replace the interior mechanical systems with improved dehumidification (phase 1), repair and repoint exterior brick and restore deteriorated windows to make the building watertight (phase 2), allow a 6–12 month drying and monitoring period (phase 3), then perform interior finish repairs such as plaster and paint (phase 4). The firm’s third-party estimator produced a total-repair estimate of about $10,000,000 for the full scope; Komatsu advised requesting roughly $2,800,000 from THC for phases 1 and 2, with the county supplying a matching share and covering ineligible expenses.

Komatsu also outlined timing: THC grant applications are due May 8; awards are announced in July, design work would follow (about four to six months) and construction should start within six months of award. The firm noted the THC emergency category is a 50/50 match and the program currently caps grants at $4,000,000.

Commissioners asked practical questions about logistics and cost timing — when county match funds would be required and whether staff would need to vacate the building during invasive mechanical work. Komatsu said phasing can reduce disruption but that full contractor access shortens construction schedules. On reimbursements, Komatsu explained that the county typically pays monthly invoices and seeks monthly reimbursement from THC.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to proceed with submitting an application to the Texas Historical Commission for phases 1 and 2 (mechanical and exterior repairs); the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote with no recorded dissents. The motion directs staff to proceed with an application requesting the scoped funds and to return with specifics on budget and match if the award is made.

Next steps: the application window closes in early May; if Bee County receives an award in July, design and contracting would follow, and the county would work with THC on easements and ongoing review. Komatsu noted the county already holds an easement from its 2006 restoration; THC would review proposed work under that agreement if the grant is awarded.

Speakers quoted in this story appear in the court record. The court did not record a roll-call vote on the grant motion; its approval was announced by voice vote during the meeting.