The insurance industry has a broad database on costs of repairs and rehabilitation. On the other hand, what about “outlier” claims in which limited data is available or when other mitigating factors need to be addressed in the remediation? How are costs handled when a building is within a National Historic Landmark District? There are more than 85,000 properties on the National Register of Historic Places, but fewer than 2,500 qualify for Landmark Status. This article focuses on one aspect of restoration – how to adequately address the restoration of historic windows on a public building after a significant fire loss.

In the spring of 2009, a small Midwestern community had just completed cosmetic repairs to its 1856 county courthouse when a devastating fire ravaged the building. The fire was rather unusual in nature in that it originated in the roof and attic, and while almost totally consuming the roof structure, it did very little direct damage to the main work areas and offices of the courthouse. The roof damage was so widespread; however, it prevented traditional methods of post fire protection of the interior. After reviewing multiple, and expensive (greater than $500,000) options for temporary weather protection, it was decided to let the facility be subjected to the elements and pay the expense to remediate any damage to the interior as part of the overall restoration. This decision ultimately led to higher than expected costs as the ensuing spring was one the wettest in recent memory, which caused damage to timber structural members, and significant mold growth.

As the restoration process moved along, it quickly became evident that there was going to be a disagreement regarding the fate of the windows. At question was whether to restore or replace. From an insurance standpoint, it was purely a cost evaluation – they would provide funds to restore or replace – whichever cost less. However, this property was historic and there was one state and up to three local “historic preservation” committees that all wanted their views and desires considered and acted upon. With the location of this courthouse in a National Landmark District, it was under the review and jurisdiction of the National Park Service of the US Department of the Interior. Although the building itself was not individually listed as a National Landmark, its inclusion within the Landmark District posed hurdles not found in normal fire restoration projects.

As a consultant to the Owner, and to fast track the restoration, American Structurepoint recommended that the project be completed through multiple prime contracts. The initial work included the emergency stabilization and selected demolition of the courthouse, while the second project involved the design and reconstruction of the roof structure. This project had to incorporate current seismic code provisions into an 1856 courthouse, constructed before earthquake resistant design was even a consideration. As roof construction took place, studies and evaluations of the interior were performed to address the enormous mold remediation program that was forthcoming, due to the building's long exposure to the elements. It was during this evaluation process that a significant detail was uncovered. Of the 52 total exterior courthouse windows, 21 were replacement windows installed in the 1960s as part of a major expansion program, which added a third floor within the courthouse. The remaining 31 courthouse windows were original to the 1856 construction, and citizens, local preservation groups, and state and national preservation branches wanted these windows to be preserved and restored. The issue, however, came down to cost. The insurer would only pay for the less expensive option.

After discovery of the two vastly different window ages, it was determined that the 1960's windows would be removed and replaced with a style and visual appearance mimicking 1856 construction. At the start of mold remediation, American Structurepoint asked the contractor to provide cost estimates for replacement versus restoration of the 31 original windows. The estimates from this contractor put restoration costs at nearly $447,000, while replacement was at approximately $174,000 – a difference of nearly $273,000 (a $273,000 up charge the insurance carrier stated would be borne by the local government, which did not have the funds to cover it). At this point in the project, the estimates were not based on a detailed scope of work prepared by a design professional, and the costs had not been competitively bid.

As the liaison between the local government and the insurance carrier, American Structurepoint recommended to hold off on the demolition of the historic windows, in order to get a competitively bid alternate during the interior restoration. Additionally, as the mold remediation project progressed, it became apparent that all window assemblies needed to be removed to properly remediate the mold. After negotiation with all parties, the windows and casements themselves needed to be remediated. Each of the 31 historic window enclosures were documented, disassembled, remediated, shrink wrapped, and stored in an environmentally controlled space until the final decision was made on repair or replacement.

As mold remediation concluded, detailed design drawings and specifications were developed for the final portion of the courthouse restoration, which was going to be competitively bid. It was somewhat of a shock to all that, in a competitively bid environment, the cost to replace was actually $95,000 more than restoring the 31 original windows in storage. The insurance adjuster still had a difficult time accepting this figure, since the costs were so dramatically different from previous estimates. Ultimately, the insurance company agreed that restoration of the windows was the appropriate course of action, and the project was completed to the satisfaction of the Owner and all the historic preservation groups.

The most important lessons we learned during this process was to keep all options open and be prepared when data is presented outside of what is expected. Without question, there were surprises on this project. We did not expect a mold remediation contractor (not specialized in historic preservation)to prefer the replacement of the 31 historic windows, resulting in the cost discrepancies. We also did not expect the timing of this restoration to be such a critical factor. The restoration happened to coincide with the national economic downturn, resulting in highly competitive bids, well under our projected costs.

This restoration was accomplished by keeping an open dialog between all the interested parties. This includes groups that were not part of the insurance contract (the local committees, National Park Service, etc.). Although the many coordination meetings, phone calls, and site visits seemed excessive, the additional time invested resulted in satisfied stakeholders and likely helped to prevent any litigation on this project.

——-

* With more than 26 years of experience, Steven R. Bruns, PE, is considered an expert in investigative and forensic engineering. Mr. Bruns has performed thousands of investigations that consisted of surveying structures and structural components of nearly every building material (concrete, steel, timber, masonry, etc.) for signs of distress or in-progress deterioration.

** Founded in 1966, American Structurepoint is your single-source contact for first notice of loss through incident resolution. Learn more at www.structurepoint.com

Special Reports /

Cost and Remediation Concerns in a Historic Landmark District

Related Stories

Recommended For You