Commission hears $300K–$3M options to replace courthouse window units, repair exterior masonry

Steele County commissioners on April 1 heard a multi-hour presentation on options to replace aging window air conditioners and address deteriorating exterior masonry at the county courthouse.

Consultant Eric Johnson of CMTA, joined by local project lead Bobby (last name not specified in transcript), presented three broad approaches: (1) install variable‑refrigerant‑flow (VRF) fan‑coil cassettes to provide cooling to occupied rooms with minimal invasive work; (2) add a ventilation (DOAS) rooftop unit plus VRF cooling to provide code‑required fresh‑air ventilation; or (3) replace heating and cooling comprehensively with a boiler and chilled‑water plant and four‑pipe fan coils. Johnson described tradeoffs among invasiveness, operating cost and expected service life.

The commissioners were told that a VRF retrofit is among the least invasive ways to add cooling but would not replace the courthouse’s existing electric “brick” heaters; VRF systems can be specified as heat pumps but require supplemental heat at very low outdoor temperatures. Adding a rooftop DOAS unit to introduce and condition fresh air would increase project cost “about $300,000 or so,” Johnson said. A full replacement of heating and cooling—boiler, chilled water, fan coils and ducting—would be far more invasive and carry a larger price tag, but would also provide a longer‑term solution (Johnson characterized it as a 35–40 year solution versus shorter service lives for less comprehensive options).

On the building exterior, commissioners were shown preliminary masonry estimates and told repairs are substantial. Johnson and Bobby summarized consultant estimates stating that complete masonry cleaning and localized repairs could range into the hundreds of thousands of dollars and that a full exterior restoration could reach into the millions; at one point consultants said a complete project could approach $3,000,000. Commissioners and staff discussed staging work, pursuing grants and doing the work in phases.

Bobby recommended formalizing an architectural services agreement and starting an RFQ/RFP process to develop drawings and cost estimates suitable for potential grant applications. Commissioners agreed to begin the procurement process for architectural services and to pursue grant funding; the board voted to authorize staff to start the RFQ process (motion passed). Staff said grant cycles and state program timelines mean design and application work would likely need to occur in spring–summer to be competitive.

Consultants encouraged the county to collect electrical and energy cost data to evaluate operating cost payback (for example, comparing continued electric heat versus conversion to propane or gas boilers). Johnson noted past courthouse projects where initial equipment choices led to unexpectedly high operating costs and cautioned that material and labor prices remain volatile.

The discussion concluded with commissioners asking staff to return with a narrower scope and with cost comparisons after the county provides utility data and after the architect procurement proceeds.

Ending: Commissioners voted to move forward with procuring architectural services and directed staff to return with refined budgets and grant‑application timelines. No construction contract was awarded at the meeting.