Commissioners approve contract for courthouse repairs, debate historic steel railing vs. aluminum

The Livingston County Board of Commissioners on June 23 approved a construction contract for repairs at the Administration and Historic Courthouse and—in a prolonged debate—chose a steel-profile railing designed to match the courthouse—s historic character rather than a lower-cost aluminum alternative.

The contract with John Stewart Associates LLC covers concrete work and associated improvements at the administration building and the historic courthouse. Commissioners amended the contractor—s contingency and several line items during discussion; the board adopted the amended contract by roll-call vote.

Why it matters: the project addresses visible safety issues—crumbling concrete steps and exposed rebar—and will alter the courthouse—s entry railings, an architectural feature residents described as a community symbol. Commissioners and several speakers said they weighed preservation, durability and long-term maintenance costs when choosing materials.

What public commenters said

Several members of the public urged the board to keep a historic look for the courthouse handrails instead of switching to a less-expensive aluminum system.

- Jennifer Nash, identified in the meeting transcript as Livingston County Clerk and speaking as a Genoa Township resident, said: "I respectfully urge the county commissioners to pass the resolution tonight in regards to the historic courthouse, including the steel handrails for that project. We are stewards of the county's most iconic and architecturally significant building." (transcript public comments)

- Mike Murphy (identified in the record as "Sheriff Murphy"; appearing during public comment) said: "Cheaper is not always best. . . . This is everything about Livingston County is the courthouse. It's on our flag." (public comment)

- Elizabeth Huntley (Livingston County Clerk per transcript) reiterated support: "I respectfully request that you approve that resolution, including the steel handrails that will honor the historical significance of the building." (public comment)

Board discussion and decision

Commissioners and staff discussed the technical difference between the two options presented in the contractor—s quote: a steel railing with square-profile posts and historic detailing that would be hot-dip galvanized and then painted versus a powder-coated aluminum railing with a round profile. Staff said the steel railing requires more fabrication (including the code-required balusters at the specified spacing), which contributed to the higher price; staff also said galvanization and paint on steel improve long-term resistance to salt and corrosion in exterior stairs.

Commissioner remarks referenced prior courthouse preservation work done during renovations to elections and the register of deeds and emphasized the courthouse—s symbolic role in the county.

After discussion the board adopted amendments to reduce the contractor—s contingency and to omit an identified bond fee, then voted to award the contract with the historic-style steel railing design and the amended project figures (clerk to incorporate final numbers into the written resolution).

What the contract requires next

The board directed the contractor and county facilities staff to proceed with field measurements and to prepare shop drawings for fabrication; because galvanization and specialized fabrication add steps, the railing shop-drawing and galvanizing schedule must proceed while concrete work begins so the project timeline can meet code and occupancy requirements. The clerk will receive the finalized contract numbers and amendments for the official record.

Ending

The contract vote closed after both public comment and extensive commissioner discussion; the board also instructed staff to pursue the amended project budget and return a finalized contract to the clerk.