SECTION I - RENOVATION COSTS
“What are the estimated repair costs to return the Courthouse to public use?”
A true estimate by qualified professionals has not been developed, nor has a bid for the work been presented to the Commissioners.
“What is the source of the funds for repair?”
Funding for repair items will primarily be a combination of three sources:
State and Federal funding
Private philanthropic groups (that specifically tailor their gifts to historic structures)
Private donations.
“What happens if enough funding isn’t obtained?”
Nothing different than what is happening now. The board could still vote to demolish the building, whether it’s the will of the people, or not. They could hold public meetings to ask the public about a tax levy and then vote to either adopt a tax levy or not. Ultimately, it’s up to the board to decide what they will do with it.
“What happens if funding is awarded and then later defunded?”
Same as above, but this would likely depend on what stage renovations are in and the intended use of the space. If we are partially into a solid renovation plan that includes economic/social improvement for the community and county with tangible benefits, then the public might want to vote to keep it moving forward. Or not. The only way taxpayers become responsible for the project is IF, on a different ballot measure, most of us decide to do that and then the commissioners follow through with the will of the people. The county still owns the building and JCRC being defunded wouldn’t have any effect on what they can do.
“I heard the estimated repair cost was $7MM------what’s with that?”
A local contractor submitted estimates totaling $3.5MM. The original estimate was increased by an additional $925,000 as a contingency and then added an additional 64% to the line-item totals to cover perceived inflation, bringing the total to $7MM. It is not based on engineered estimates by professionals who are qualified for this type of work and there are several line items included for repair or replacement in that estimate that do not need to be addressed at this time. Additionally, several of the line items from the estimate are either priced at or have been inflated to an abnormally high cost and no supporting documentation was provided by the contractor to support the exceptionally high estimates they provided.
“Who will pay the operational cost for the redeveloped Courthouse?”
JC RC is working to secure State of Illinois funding that will cover up to 20 years Operational Expenses to include utilities, insurance, and maintenance. There will also be monthly revenue from tenants and fee collections from other approved uses to cover actual day-to-day operating expenses after any secured funding has run out.
SECTION II - DEMOLITION
“Is there a clear and accurate estimate on Demolition Cost?”
The simple answer is “no”. The County Board has stated that they have three estimates, ALL verbal from unnamed sources, that are in the $200K range. Like the estimate the county received for restoration, itI is vague and short on any real details. The JC RC has engaged White & Bergognoni, and based on their years of experience in historic preservation, they estimated a cost of at least $500K, and Landmarks Illinois has estimated between $500K and $1M.
“Who will pay the demolition cost to remove the 1871 Courthouse?”
Demolition will likely fall directly on the taxpayers of Johnson County. The purpose of the 1% sales tax was defined as land preparation and demolition of current buildings, IF that space was going to be used for the future facility, parking, etc.
“Are there plans to salvage the cupola and clock, any of the finished sandstone blocks, the windows and doors, corbels, window brows, etc.?”
As with all construction projects, the devil is the scope of work and plans to save any of the materials from the 1871 Courthouse will ADD time and cost to the demolition.
“How will they address and remediate asbestos and lead paint?”
It is our understanding, and appropriate to mention here, that the County would need to secure a demolition permit from the Federal Preservation Office, and would need to justify the condition that warrants demolition. According to the Preservation Office, the County has an obligation to maintain this historic structure because of its listing on the National Register. The Board has publicly told us that they plan to spend $0 on maintenance on the Historic Courthouse, and they pretty much have.
“Does the demo cost include the two concrete and steel vaults, which will require cutting torches and jackhammers?”
This translates directly to additional time and money. Since there are no original drawings, removal of the vaults could create a significant challenge in the demolition process and create unexpected costs.
“If demolished, how will the debris be handled?”
Proper, responsible, and LEGAL disposal will add cost. You can’t just dig a hole and bury it in a farmer’s field.
“What about the cost to remove the old records, files and cabinets that are still in the Historic Courthouse?”
Cleaning, removal, and relocation are separate costs and likely aren’t included in the verbal estimates that the county received. These additional costs will ultimately be borne by the County. These include the 100 or so old leather-bound County Clerk ledgers, plus many, many file cabinets that are full, along with approximately 500 banker's boxes of files. All of these in the basement, of course, have the same mildew on them as they had when the Old Courthouse was in operation.
“Does the demolition cost include reclamation of the Square, with a basement volume of fill dirt, including fertilizer, grass seed, and straw?”
This remains an unanswered question as the board has not shared any details of demolition estimates they received, nor have they communicated a vision for the square without the 1871 Courthouse.
SECTION III - FUTURE USE
“What is the intended use for the 1871 Courthouse after repairs?”
The Board of Commissioners have advised that any re-use must be “For Public Benefit”, but with no further clarification. JC RC’s best interpretation is that the 1st floor can be used as lease space for: offices that provide service to the public, such as Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) Office, Workforce development and education programs, Illinois State representative satellite offices, Criminal Justice Probation and Parole Offices, and could even be used retail space for non-profit organizations like Arrowleaf, the Johnson County Historical and Genealogical Society, etc.
There are a variety of potential uses for the 2nd floor, ranging from Mock Trials for SIU School of Law Students (think locally famous Coon Dog Trial or several murder trials), to Craft Exhibits and Demonstrations, Conference Center, Wedding/Event Venue, etc. ALL OF WHICH WOULD BE INCOME PRODUCING!
“Assuming the Courthouse can pay for itself after repairs, are there any other benefits to redeveloping the Courthouse - why should I vote yes?”
First and foremost, the building carries significant historical value and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 2024 the Courthouse was placed on Landmarks Illinois’ Most Endangered Historic Places list. To date, the building has only had minimal alterations to its original design and preserving this historical Johnson County Landmark creates a significant point of interest, adding to Johnson County’s tourism opportunities.
“What plans does the county have for the space, if they go ahead with demolition?”
The County Commissioners have not communicated any plans for the square beyond getting the opinion of the county voters on whether tax payer money should be used for rehabilitation of the historic structure.
To be clear, JC RC has not, is not, and will not ask the county for Johnson County tax payer funds for this project. While the assumption that it will ultimately be on local tax payers is understandable given the level of pain we have all felt the last couple of years. Don’t let that sentiment to overshadow the opportunity a historic structure like the 1871 Courthouse represents. At a minimum, It needs to be fully explored before deciding its future.
SECTION IV - STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY/SAFETY
“I heard the Courthouse has been condemned?”
Not true. Out of an abundance of caution, the Board of Commissioners have opted for an ultra-conservative approach and currently allow no entrance to the building. This is not based on engineering assessment and is currently preventing any repair or redevelopment progress.
“What broke in the attic that required moving out of the Courthouse?”
The bottom horizontal, wooden beam (chord) finally fractured completely in September 2023. Examination of the break indicated that the break was not totally new, but had been gradually fracturing over many years, possibly even due to a natural defect in the wooden member.
“Is the 1871 Courthouse structurally stable?”
Absolutely! The fractured truss chord has been raised into position and is supported by structural scaffolding with widespread timber mats to distribute the load to both the first and second floors. Steel cables have been installed to hold the ends of the chord together, and steel “star washers” with cross building cables will be installed to assist in holding the walls plumb, as seen in many older buildings. Structural engineers from White & Borgognoni recently were in the building and commented…
“A recent assessment of the building found it to be in overall stable condition, with good potential for rehabilitation and restoration. The building’s foundations, masonry walls, and wood-frame bearing walls show no evidence of settlement or displacement. The first- and second-floor framing likewise show no signs of structural distress or significant deflection. The attic wood structure is generally stable, with the exception of the area adjacent to the failed roof truss. Importantly, these findings indicate that the building’s primary structural systems remain intact and capable of supporting a preservation-based rehabilitation approach.”
“What repair work is required for redevelopment?”
The repair work would be completed in common sense, methodical phases.
Phase I - Get the Doors Open; consisting of broken truss repair (as well as preventative stiffening of the remaining two trusses), roof repair, repair soffit and corbels, and install roof crickets at the four chimneys.
Phase II - Prepare the First Floor for Occupation; includes exterior foundation drainage, new HVAC, new flooring, two new restrooms, and interior painting.
Phase III - Bring Back the Second Floor; includes adding an elevator, Courtroom cosmetics, and tuckpoint/waterproof the exterior masonry.
Lease of Space within the building will occur as the work allows to ensure the building is returned to public benefit ASAP!
Later Improvements will include upgrade and/or replacement of windows and doors, lighting, security but are not necessary at this time.
“What about the stories of mold in the basement?”
There is no evidence of dangerous molds (black, green, blue, or red) in the basement. There is white mildew residue, which is much different than mold and is easily treated. The Courthouse has been plagued for many years with moisture in the basement. This condition existed for many years PRIOR to the closing in September 2023 and fixing it was ignored by several Commissioner Boards.
“Why is there that much moisture in the basement?”
There are two contributing factors; poor drainage (foundation water migration) and interior basement walls.
The foundation water migration issue is two-fold, the sandstone foundation and poor exterior drainage around the building
There is a maze of walls constructed in the basement without proper ventilation and/or additional moisture mitigation methods.
Both will be addressed in the repair and redevelopment.
“What about the rumored ‘leaky roof’ on the Courthouse?”
Yes, the metal roof has some issues that will be repaired and should be sufficient for many years. Here again is an example of an issue that had been ignored or kicked down the road for many years by previous Commissioner Boards and now must be addressed.
SECTION IV - ADDITIONAL COURTHOUSE RESTORATION INFORMATION
“What does the JC RC actually want?”
Access to the building: The commissioners made the decision to block access out of an abundance of concern for public safety, which was the right thing to do at the time. The building
has since been surveyed by engineers and determined the building is safe to access. Now that doesn't mean it is ready to be opened to the public, but it does mean that the building can be opened for engineers and construction estimators so we can continue to work up rehab and future-use plans for the Old Courthouse and present to the people of Johnson County a redevelopment plan with actual anticipated costs, funding, how it will be used, and the economic and/or social benefits that redevelopment could bring.
Partnership with the county in the rehab and redevelopment of this historic structure. We're not asking them for taxpayer money. We are asking for them to assist in pursuing grants that are specific to county or municipal entities. The pool of grants will be substantially larger if we can pursue those types of grants as well.
That's it 😊
“What have you been doing for the last 3 years?”
Everyone is under the misconception that JC RC took this on as soon as the Old Courthouse closed, but that could not be further from the truth. The first several months were spent waiting on the insurance claim, and then a potential challenge to the eventual denial.
After the claim denial was finalized, a local contractor spent several months working up repair estimates and then did not provide the estimate to either the county commissioners or the JC RC. We finally received a copy earlier this year which allowed us to start looking into the estimate.
After receiving the local estimate, the county commissioners locked the building down and we were unable to access the building until August 5 of this year, and we had several engineers on-site that day to get a preliminary restoration plan worked up by a qualified team.
We have received that report and it is very promising - for historical preservation, and also for overall cost
“What about demolition? Would those costs be paid for by taxpayers?”
According to the board minutes from the November 26, 2015 edition of the Vienna Times, the board defined the purpose of the 1% sales tax as “land preparation of and demolition of current buildings, if that space was going to be used for the future facility.” As an example, “if the location of the current offices was to be used for parking (for the future facility), those offices could be demolished using the funds raised by the tax. If a new county courthouse was placed elsewhere, then those funds could not be used to demolish the current offices.” The board wished to modify it to include use of the 1% sales tax to pay for the cost to demolish the current buildings, regardless of where the future courthouse was to be built. We interpret this to mean only the buildings that were on 5th street.
“Would the County consider selling the 1871 Courthouse?”
At this time, the board of commissioners have indicated they are not interested in selling the property. They believe it to be prime real estate but do not have a plan for redevelopment of the site.
“Has the broken truss chord been repaired?”
The broken truss chord has been returned to its position and supported using structural scaffolding and timber mats to distribute the load. It has not been repaired. However, Hurst-Rosche Engineering from Marion, IL has engineered the repair, consisting of steel channels on both sides of the broken member with multiple through-bolts. This pro-active stiffening will also be applied to the remaining two wooden trusses for future stability.
“Why are the corbels falling off the Courthouse?”
The current Board of Commissioners have indicated that they intend to spend $0 on maintenance toward the 1871 Courthouse. With no maintenance attention for almost three years……yes, two wooden corbels have fallen, and a third is near falling. They are simply attached to the soffit with long nails. Rather than spend money on repair, the Commissioners opted for the plastic fence and unsightly grass growth
“What is a roof cricket?
A roof cricket is a sloped, triangle-shaped piece of roofing metal that directs the water traveling down the roof metal to the sides of a chimney rather than allowing water to pool on the uphill side of the brick chimney.
“What about ADA requirements in the redeveloped Courthouse?”
JCRC has engaged White-Borgognoni Architects from Carbondale to address several 1871 Courthouse items, of which one is ADA compliance. We expect to get their report in the next few weeks, but their initial thoughts were that the doors were wide enough, and that an elevator would be needed for 2nd floor access and additional restrooms as well. An elevator and restrooms are included in our repair and redevelopment plan.
“Will the redeveloped Courthouse have new bathrooms?”
Yes. Two new unisex restrooms are planned for the first floor, and two additional restrooms are planned for the second floor.
“What will the basement of the redeveloped Courthouse be used for?”
The Courthouse basement, once moisture free and opened up, will present an interesting opportunity for several future uses. A kitchen could be installed to serve the Courtroom Conference Center and Meeting Venue and or storage of overflow County Documents could be an option.
“Will the outside appearance of the Courthouse be changed?”
No cosmetic changes are planned for the exterior of the 1871 Courthouse.