Cost of courthouse roofing job soars
- Charlene Sims, Journal staff
- 5 days ago
- 4 min read
By Charlene Sims, staff writer
MOUND CITY – On Monday, Nov 10, Linn County Commissioner Alison Hamilton and Commission Chair Jim Johnson learned that the cost of the courthouse roof had increased to just over $986,900, nearly doubling a bid from another contractor when the project was first bid in June.
Public Works Administrator Jesse Walton brought a proof of loss statement to the commissioners for a signature. The document showed that the roofer Dave Sutter of World Premier of Kansas City had found more issues to be dealt with in the roofing project.
When bids were first put out on the roof in March, no bids were received. At the March 31, 2025 meeting, the commissioners asked former Public Works Administrator Shaun West that the bid be put out again with possible contractors being notified and asked for the deadline to be April 18 so a decision could be made on April 21.
On April 14, after West had left his position, Walton was then asked to reach out to potential bidders and put out the request for bids on the courthouse roof repairs.
At the June 9 meeting, Walton presented three bids to the commissioners. They were:
DHI Roofing of Lee's Summit, Mo., for $582,102.
Stanfield Roofing of El Dorado, Kan. for $35,249
World Premier of Kansas City Building Services which said they would require the $10,000 deductible and all other funds would come from the insurance settlement.
Since the bids were so inconsistent, the commissioners asked Walton on June 16 to reach out to get similar bid parameters from the bidders.
On June 23, Hamilton made a motion to approve David Sutter who bid as World Premier of Kansas City Building Services to complete repairs on the courthouse roof, bell tower, courthouse, courthouse annex and the 4-H building.
The total of the bid was $29, 925. Johnson clarified that this amount included the $10,000 deductible. The motion passed unanimously by Hamilton and Johnson as Commissioner Jason Hightower was not at the meeting.
On Oct. 14, 2024, the commissioners approved signing a sworn statement of proof-of-loss showing the the county will receive an extra $344,257 on insurance. At this meeting, it was first mentioned that there would be a full roof replacement (per video but not in minutes.) Also, discussion was held that the county had already received $148,000 from the insurance company.
Going over the paperwork, Hightower explained to Johnson, "We've already received $148,000 and they're going to pay us the $344,000 so they've already substracted our deductible out there. We have our depreciation. This is because of how long it's been there but our agreement with our roofing contractor was for the insurance proceeds so we're not going to be coming out of pocket with the $378,000."
"A lot more than we thought in the beginning, right?" asked Hamilton.
"Yeah, it's a lot more than what it was to begin with. They went through and did quite a bit more inspecting on the building and found a lot more that needed to be replaced on it," said Walton. "So instead of just patchwork on it, deeper inspection on it showed that it needed a whole roof replacement on it."
During the Nov. 10 meeting, Hamilton moved to sign another proof-of-loss statement changing the full cost of roof repair from $883,791 to $986,911 with a total of supplemental claim to be $438,566. The motion passed unanimously by Hamilton and Johnson. Hightower was not present.
Walton presented the statement of proof-of-loss to the commission.
“So it’s went up, is what you’re saying?” Johnson asked.
Walton said it did..
Johnson asked County Counselor Jacklyn Paletta if she had seen it, and she said she had seen it..
Johnson asked, “Does the insurance know about this?”
Walton said the insurance company is the one that sent him the statement.
“I just needed to bring that to your attention with what they had found,” said Walton.
Before making the motion, Hamilton said to Johnson, “It doesn’t necessarily affect us. It’s still the same. The loss is increasing, right?”
Johnson agreed and said he was good with it.
Next, Walton asked the commission to release the funds to Sutter for the first and second invoice for the construction. Walton said that Sutter requested that he be paid in thirds through the construction process.
“Have we been paid anything yet?” asked Johnson.
Walton answered, “They (the insurance company) haven’t sent us anything yet, I was going to call Al (representative from KCAMP the county’s insurer) again today. Al told me there was a check coming, but I haven’t seen it.”
Johnson asked Walton, “We’re not releasing until we get paid right?”
Paletta answered, “My understanding was that we were paying the insurance proceeds to . . .”
“Correct, but we haven’t received those proceeds. So, last week we had asked for an update why the insurance isn’t paying us,” said Hamilton.
“Well, they told me there was a check coming,” said Walton. “But Al had not seen it being released yet. He was going to check on it but I did not hear back from him. So, I’m going to contact him this afternoon when we get done here in the meeting and visit.
“I would feel more comfortable waiting until we had the money,” said Hamilton.
Johnson agreed.