County facilities staff outline multi‑million-dollar plumbing repairs, hire options and plans to bring cleaning in-house

Missoula County facilities staff told commissioners the county faces extensive, aging water piping failures across multiple county buildings — including the county detention center — and presented two main options to address the problem: a large annual capital set‑aside or hiring in‑house trades staff.

The facilities presenter said the piping system at the detention center was installed around 1999 and that the county has replaced roughly 1.5 to 2 miles of piping to date, which staff estimate is about 10% of what is needed. “We’re probably averaging on an average year, we’re averaging close to 500 hours of overtime just for water leaks at the detention center,” the presenter said. The presenter described examples including three‑inch supply lines that can discharge significant volumes when they fail and pinhole leaks that are often discovered only after multiple layers of ceiling materials have been breached.

To address the deterioration, staff offered two options: establish a large annual capital allocation of roughly $500,000 a year for the next 10 years (a program staff described as a roughly $5,000,000 scope) to develop scopes and contract repairs; or hire two full‑time plumbers, purchase materials and equipment, and complete much of the work in‑house. Staff estimated the in‑house option at about $350,000 per year including roughly $100,000 for materials and said dedicating in‑house plumbers could shorten the timeline (staff estimated two to three years in‑house vs. about five years if outsourced to the public market). The presenter also gave a sample recent repair cost: about $60,000 to replace four lines and associated finishes for an approximately 80‑foot run.

Facilities staff emphasized the difficulty of early detection because many ceilings have multiple fire and acoustic layers, which can hide leaks until significant water penetration and potential mold exposure occur. The presenter said an air quality test taken after recent leaks showed no current danger but that some ceiling areas are of “high concern” and will require removal and inspection to establish the full extent of damage.

Staff also sought changes to personnel and tools to address deferred maintenance more broadly. Requests and proposals included: converting an existing half‑time administrative position (Maddie) to full time to assist with contracts and Workday administration; hiring a construction‑management/asset‑management position to use the county’s Brightly/Asset Essentials system to forecast replacements and develop long‑term funding plans; and creating two additional internal plumbing FTEs focused on pipe replacement and related repairs. The facilities presenter said the asset system can provide long‑range replacement-cost forecasts for boilers, sidewalks, roofs and other tagged assets, helping the county plan multi‑year financing.

On building‑division operations, the presenter requested a $30,000 increase in contracted plan‑review services to avoid bottlenecks as more commercial plans enter review. The presenter said the county uses a chart from the International Code Council to set plan‑review fees and that Bureau Veritas performs much of the contracted review work; staff said the contracted reviewer’s charge is currently substantially lower than the plan‑review fee schedule, so the county is not passing additional reviewer charges to applicants.

Finally, staff presented an internal proposal to bring commercial cleaning in‑house. The county currently pays a private vendor roughly $50,000 per month for cleaning services for the buildings the presenter manages. Staff proposed converting that work to roughly 13 county FTEs with an estimated average wage of about $23.50 per hour (pending HR and union review). Staff said up‑front equipment and start‑up costs would be higher than the current contract but projected that quality control and flexibility — particularly as the county adds buildings such as the sheriff’s facility — could offset costs over time.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about timelines, costs and whether plan‑review fees should be adjusted; building‑division staff replied they do not recommend raising permit fees at this time. No formal motions to adopt any of the staffing or capital requests were made during the meeting; those items remained requests and proposals for future budget or procurement action.

Next steps recorded in the discussion: staff will refine scopes and cost estimates for the detention‑center repairs and the in‑house cleaning proposal and return to the commissioners with formal budget requests or procurement recommendations.