March 19, 2024

County annex building investigation presented to supervisors

Image 1 of 2

An investigation of the Jasper County Anex Building’s exterior foundation was released in a presentation to the Jasper County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

Shive-Hattery Civil Engineer Christopher Bauer, who competed the investigation, along with engineer Steve Brase, gave their findings after examining three specific areas of the building.

“You approved us to proceed with a limited scope of what we had initially reviewed with you, to pretty much look at the foundation, to deal with the main water infiltration, the water issues in the basement and really get this figured out and see what it would cost the county before we look at the rest of the building,” Bauer said. “A lot of numbers in our cost opinion are worst case scenarios.”

The county was unable to provide any original building drawings or any drawings from previous remodel projects. Without any drawings of existing conditions, Bauer said, the investigation and review are based on visual observations only and no destructive investigations were completed.

The scope of the investigation concentrated on three areas, the exterior foundation infiltration and condition, the exterior stair tower and the south building entrance and exterior dock.

Exterior foundation infiltration and condition

The scope of the investigation is limited to the exterior building foundation and window wells and existing infiltration issues in the lower level of the building. Through their observations, Bauer and Brase found issues throughout the basement on the exterior foundation walls on all four sides of the building. Limited portions of the exterior foundation walls were exposed on the interior of the building with a majority of the walls covered with sheetrock and wainscoting.

“It is a brick foundation with no evidence of any water proofing, which is pretty standard for 80 years ago —  approximately 80 years ago ,which is how old the building is,” Bauer said.

Also, Bauer found a majority of the infiltration was happening through the existing brick foundation walls with some isolated areas where leakage could be directly linked to conduit, windows or other penetrations. The window wells showed signs of the brick retaining walls being displaced inward and cracking with brick deterioration. Also, no information was available on the drains or the outlet locations for the window wells with a sump pump pit not believed to be in place.

The engineers believe the window well intakes are potentially tied into the buildings sanitary sewer system. If the window wells are repaired, they would likely be required to be disconnected from the sanity sewer systems.

For the exterior foundation infiltration and condition, Bauer recommends additional investigation into the window well intakes including a video inspection and tracing to identify their outlet locations. Also, a topographic survey is suggested to verify existing accessible ramp and stair elevations and elevations surround the building. The survey will additionally identify potential storm sewer connections points for proposed foundation drains and window well drains.

“In order to stop the majority of water infiltration through the existing masonry foundation wall, we recommend that all exterior foundation walls be excavated, repaired as required and have positive side waterproofing installed,” Bauer said. “Positive side waterproofing is known to be the best and most successful way to water proof but not the most cost effective. However, at this building the deteriorated condition of the window wells must be addressed. The most logical thing to do is remove them in their entirety and rebuild them in some manner. With this excavation a great portion of the water proofing cost is already incurred at that point.”

Bauer also recommends an exterior foundation drainage system be installed to remove ground water around the building. The added tile drains would likely need to be routed to a sump put which can be pumped to an adjacent public storm sewer.

Exterior stair tower

The engineers evaluated the options and scope of work required to remove the exterior stair tower. A complete structural review of the stair tower was not completed but with the initial review, the stair tower was found to be in good condition.

It is currently attached to the building with bolts, which they found should be fairly easy to detach and remove. Portions of the original building stone were cut and removed for the second floor door entrance and with removal of the door, replacement stone panels back to the original design of the building would need to be placed or a lower cost option of metal panels could be used.

It is recommended to remove the stair tower to provide access along the building foundation for waterproofing and window well repairs. In doing so, the door would need to be addressed, a window well guardrail would need to be patched and existing electrical service on the stair tower wall would need to be removed.

South building entrance and exterior dock

When looking at the south building entrance and exterior dock, the engineers evaluated options to remove the existing postal truck docks and bring the accessibility entrance up to code. They found the surface of the concrete has many areas of spalling and deteriorated concrete creating tripping hazards and uneven pedestrian surfaces.

“The large wood canopy extending over the dock with a large cantilever over the adjacent parking shows signs of rot and deterioration,” Bauer said. “The canopy has numerous steel column supports that bear on the concrete dock. The concrete piers which extend below the dock and support the concrete dock and steel columns appear to be in poor condition and their adequate capacity is doubted.”

Also, the accessibility ramp currently running from the docks does not meeting ADA code requirements. It would need completely redone in order to follow current requirements.

The exterior stairs at the southeast entrance are in poor condition with deteriorating concrete and brick retaining walls. A small area drain in the bottom of the stairs shows signs of plugging and the existing rise and run of stair treads does not appear to meet current code requirements, Bauer said.

To address the area, Bauer recommends removing the dock and canopy as the best long term cost effective solution. The original dock and canopy were used for mail trucks and mail handling but currently the dock and canopy have little use to the present function of the building. If removed, a new stoop would need to be installed at the south entrance door with a new accessible ramp.

The cost estimate for the project broken down in to areas is $50,000 for the stairs tower, $100,000 for the south dock and $450,000 for the water proofing services. Should the board decide to fill in the window wells, a cost savings of $150,000 is anticipated. Also, without all contingency plans in place, Bauer said he thinks the final total could be in the range of $300,000 to $500,000, depending on what further investigations find and which options the board selects.

Contact Jamee A. Pierson at 641-792-3121 ext. 6534 or jpierson@newtondailynews.com