County delays courthouse roof replacement to pursue grants, directs staff to return with final plan

Winona County facilities staff presented four options for the aging courthouse roof and asked the board for direction on schedule and funding. County Engineer and building official Dave Kramer reviewed the costs, materials and grant opportunities and recommended seeking grant funding and moving a major project into 2026 to align with historical-preservation grant cycles.

Kramer told the board that one of the more viable funding sources is the Minnesota Historical and Cultural Heritage grant program (legacy funds) and that an application cycle this year could fund partial costs with awards announced late in the calendar year. "That funding is from the legacy funds…potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars," Kramer said, describing timing that would let work begin in 2026 and require completion within a year and a half of award.

Commissioners asked about interim safety and liability measures because some roof tiles have loosened and agusty winds have dislodged pieces. Staff said short-term mitigation options are limited: entrances and egress points are exposed, and no full short-term fix eliminates the risk of falling material. The board directed staff to include interim safety steps in any work plan and to keep the public informed while pursuing grants.

After discussion, Commissioner Meyer moved that the board adopt four staff recommendations: (1) defer major replacement work to 2026 to allow grant pursuit and SHPO review; (2) pursue identified grant opportunities and city collaboration on historic-preservation funding; (3) request staff to develop detailed project scopes and cost estimates for the chosen option; and (4) require that any actual contract or capital expenditure be returned to the board for approval. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion; the board approved the recommendations by voice vote.

Staff noted two material choices discussed in public: natural slate (historic appearance and long life but higher cost and installation specifics) and modern steel/metal shingles (manufacturers offer slate-like profiles and warranties). Kramer said vendors had advised methods to fasten tiles and mitigate wind uplift but acknowledged prior roof sections have experienced uplift under severe weather. The board directed staff to include alternate bid lines (for reuse of salvageable slate or new material) in project specifications.

What happens next: staff will pursue grant applications with city staff as appropriate, prepare more-detailed architectural and cost proposals, and return to the board before any contract execution or capital spending. The project schedule and final construction scope will be determined after grant results and staff recommendations.

Context: The county budget included an allowance for a courthouse roof project, but commissioners preferred pursuing outside funding to reduce levy impact. The board asked for written grant options and a timetable and emphasized that staff must return for appropriation approval before any money is committed.