Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Architect recommends removing courthouse cupola for ground‑level restoration; court to get contractor estimates
Loading...
Summary
Cahill Jacobs presented a phased plan to stabilize and repair Boyle County's historic courthouse cupola, proposing either on‑site scaffolding or crane removal of the cupola top, truss replacement, roof repairs and possible temporary relocation of the bell. The firm recommended contractor cost estimates and a phased timeline with preparatory work in May and construction after July 4.
Architects from the firm Cahill Jacobs presented a condition assessment and phased scope of work for the courthouse cupola and attached roof on April 14.
The presenting architect (identified in the record as Sabrina Oakes of Cahill Jacobs) said the "main goal is safety and stabilization of the cupola," and described structural issues that include a twisting top section, failing trusses in the building's oldest (1860s) portion, water infiltration and spalling brick. She described two contractor approaches: shore the cupola in place with scaffolding or use a crane to lift the cupola's very top to the ground for safer repair access.
The firm recommended a three‑phase approach: a short May preparatory phase to protect site surfaces and set up laydown areas (planned to avoid planned community celebrations), a July start for structural work including removal of the roof deck and insertion of new trusses in the oldest section, and subsequent architectural repairs such as new sheathing, flashing and replacement of missing shingles. The architect also noted masonry concerns and recommended further review by a masonry specialist and a structural engineer to finalize scope and costs.
The presentation addressed the bell: the county could leave the bell in place or remove and display it on the ground; the architects recommended including an estimate for both options because public engagement could benefit from a ground‑level display but that approach carries additional cost. The firm also flagged likely contractor tasks including lead paint or other hazardous‑material remediation, new maintenance access and possible historic‑preservation approvals.
The court asked the firm to obtain contractor cost estimates and structural engineering input and to provide drawings and a longer scope of work; the architects said drawings and a more detailed scope would be left with the county (on a flash drive) and that they would return with budget estimates and contractor recommendations.
No final contract or funding allocation was approved at the meeting; the county will receive the architect's pricing and proceed with procurement steps if the court decides to move forward.
