Winona County commissioners heard a technical briefing and budget estimate about replacing the slate roof on the 1889 Winona County Courthouse and directed staff to gather more information on materials, costs, insurance implications and grant opportunities.

Brian Merle of Garland Company presented condition observations and life-cycle comparisons between historic slate, synthetic slate, metal shingles and a standing-seam metal roof. Garland engineers reported that pull tests on the existing slate showed poor attachment and that wind uplift had been a key failure mechanism for the current slate installation. The company said a standing-seam metal roof generally performs best for wind uplift and life-cycle cost, while true slate has longer theoretical longevity but requires precise installation and quality-control oversight; synthetic slate and metal shingles occupy intermediate positions in the lifecycle/cost tradeoffs.

County staff noted the courthouse is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and that staff had contacted the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). SHPO staff said a standing-seam metal roof would not be a compatible replacement for historic slate and that installing standing seam would, as a general rule, be considered an adverse effect for that historic property. City historic-preservation staff (local HPC) said the building is on their priority list to assist with Certificates of Appropriateness and possible local review.

Board discussion focused on: (1) whether a standing-seam metal roof could be approved by SHPO and the local historical review process; (2) an apparent mismatch between initial budget figures for standing seam and the board’s $2 million allocation in the 2025 budget; (3) the need for a cost breakdown (materials, scaffolding, contractor installation, engineering and warranties); (4) insurance premium effects of different roof materials; and (5) potential outside funding sources and grants for historic-preservation projects.

No formal construction commitment was made. Commissioners directed staff to: confirm whether SHPO or other historic-preservation review would permit a standing-seam alternate or under what circumstances; provide competitive breakdowns (standing seam vs. synthetic slate vs. other options) including scaffolding/fabrication/insurance cost estimates and an estimate of expected life-cycle cost; and research state and private grants for historic-preservation roofing projects. Staff also was asked to return with a clarified cost estimate for 17,820 square feet (packet figure) and note schedule implications if the county wanted construction in 2025.

Ending: The board asked for a written package that separates (a) whether standing seam is permissible under historic-preservation rules, (b) a competitive bid-ready cost breakdown, and (c) potential grants and insurance impacts before any remodel funds are committed.