In the fall of 2009, the County of Northampton received an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) Program, funded for the first time by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) of 2009, represents a Presidential priority to deploy the cheapest, cleanest, and most reliable energy technologies we have—energy efficiency and conservation—across the country. The Program, authorized in Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) and signed into law on December 19, 2007, is modeled after the Community Development Block Grant program administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is intended to assist U.S. cities, counties, states, territories, and Indian tribes to develop, promote, implement, and manage energy efficiency and conservation projects and programs designed to: • Reduce fossil fuel emissions; • Reduce the total energy use of the eligible entities; • Improve energy efficiency in the transportation, building, and other appropriate sectors; and • Create and retain jobs. The scope of work of the original Request for Proposals included two different contract programs, work that would be funded by the EECBG and a separate program for exterior repairs that did not involve energy efficiency. The EECBG program was to replace 163 existing windows of the historic courthouse and make repairs associated with the window replacements and other energy related building envelope problems such as closing unused vents. The program for the non-EECBG work was to repair areas of the historic courthouse that had suffered from years of deferred maintenance and included the metal cornices, front columns, built-in gutters and downspouts. As part of the grant requirements, all work had to be reviewed by the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment for Historic Properties and by the Department of Energy for compliance with the EECBG and the Recovery Act (ARRA).
Front View After Restoration
@ John Harry. Published on March 22, 2013.
PROJECT NARRATIVE: One of the major challenges of the initial program was to satisfy requirements of both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Pennsylvania Historic and Museum Commission (PHMC). After a thorough interior and exterior building analysis utilizing a high lift for exterior conditions, room by room interior inspections, and occupant surveys, it was determined that the project should be reconsidered as a window restoration effort. The existing historic wood windows were in surprisingly good condition especially considering the lack of maintenance and regular painting for decades. The monumental wood windows were repaired where necessary with consolidants and fillers, reglazed with traditional glazing compound, and repainted. The treatment of the rectangular double-hung windows included similar repairs plus the replacement of single strength glass with insulating glass with adhered exterior muntins that simulate the original muntins and glazing compound.
Front View Before
© Artefact, Inc. . Published on March 22, 2013.
The energy efficiency of the historic windows was addressed through interior storm panels for the monumental courtroom and entry windows and retrofitting the rectangular double-hung windows with insulating glass and new weather stripping. The client requested continued operability for most of the double-hung windows in offices and in areas where fresh air might be desired in the future. In order to satisfy this need the windows were modified to be single-hung, the upper sash weights removed, and weight pockets insulated. The lower sashes remain operable with recalibrated weights to counterbalance the weight of the heavier glass. The two major window types were tested for energy efficiency before and after renovation. The results proved the efficacy of the window repair strategy and met all DOE expectations.
Monumental Windows Before
© Artefact, Inc. . Published on March 22, 2013.
Other work undertaken to reduce energy use and improve the historic integrity of the building included the removal of the 1940’s window wall in the eastern stair and recreation of the smaller former monumental window, the removal of window alterations and re-creation of the smaller original window on the east façade of the 1860 courthouse, and the blocking in of unused grills in the exterior stucco walls. The new insulated glass window installations increased the area of insulated wall resulting in less heat loss through the walls and windows. Air infiltration through the exterior walls was reduced with the closing of many grills.
Monumental Window After
© Artefact, Inc. . Published on March 22, 2013.
The cost to repair rather than replace the historic windows was significantly less than the estimates to replace the windows prepared for the EECBG submission. The additional grant money was used to upgrade and renovate additional features of the building resulting in greater energy efficiency for the building. This work included the replacement of the existing deteriorated roofing and box gutter linings. Many layers of old asphalt roofing were removed, new sheathing installed over the rough roofing boards, and new roof shingles with cooling granules installed. The deteriorated EPDM box gutter linings were removed, repairs made to the wood substructure, and new, light colored Sarnafil PVC membranes installed in the gutters.
Downspouts before and After
© Artefact, Inc. . Published on March 22, 2013.
Repairs to the exterior of the building not covered by the energy efficiency grant included repairs to the existing stucco masonry, repairs to the pressed metal cornices, replacement of undersized and deteriorated downspouts, and the installation of a new lightning protection system.
Stairwell Windows Before
© Artefact, Inc. . Published on March 22, 2013.
The entire historic courthouse was also repainted. This work was covered, in part, by the EECBG grant where the building was affected by the window repairs, window replacements, and alterations to the envelope for energy efficiency. The question of colors for the historic courthouse came up early in the design phase. A consultant was hired to undertake an historic paint analysis to understand the original colors of the courthouse and the types of paint used so that new paints would be compatible with the old. We worked closely with the consultant, County Executive, President Judge, and the Director of Public Works to derive the new color scheme. This scheme is the best approximation of the original colors found on the courthouse at the end of the multiple building campaigns ending in 1909.
Stairwell Window After
© Artefact, Inc. . Published on March 22, 2013.
Several of the challenges of the project included site access for equipment, construction in an occupied public building, and the removal of unexpected lead paint and asbestos. Our design work was expanded to include the design of an access ramp that would become permanent at the conclusion of construction. This permanent ramp will provide access for future work, maintenance, and emergency vehicles. The design of the ramp is based on terraces that were present in the original site design and will be minimally visible in its final form (construction work on ramp to be completed in the next month). Working in an occupied institution building posed challenges for the contractor’s schedule and methods. In close collaboration with an industrial hygienist and the county safety committee all work was monitored and modified to accommodate county workers and the active court schedule in the historic courtrooms.