Eaton County lays out $28.2 million six‑year capital plan, flags security and drain costs

Eaton County staff told the Ways & Means Committee Tuesday that the county’s draft Capital Improvement Program (CIP) shows roughly $28.2 million in needs over the next six years, a package made up of about $16.2 million for county facilities and $12 million for technology infrastructure.

The presentation, given to commissioners during a special Ways & Means meeting, emphasized two themes throughout: the county has deferred routine maintenance for years and a number of large, non‑discretionary costs—most notably drain maintenance and security upgrades—are compressing the general fund.

“The average age of our buildings is 37 years,” Chad Powers, facilities director, said. “Every component has a lifespan and, when you defer it, the cost just balloons.” Powers told commissioners that the courthouse alone dates to 1976 and that past staffing reductions left facilities short of institutional knowledge needed for proactive upkeep.

Ben (staff member) and Powers walked through a building‑by‑building inventory in the CIP packet. The plan separates ongoing maintenance (funded historically from the Public Improvement Fund) from capital projects bigger than $25,000. Projects explicitly called out in the draft include roofing, elevator work, masonry and security modifications for older buildings; the draft also lists the county’s vehicle and equipment needs.

Eric Daley, director of Technology Services, said technology needs are large and different in kind from building repairs. He told the committee that some network infrastructure installed in 2019 is expected to need replacement in roughly three to seven years, that replacement cycles for laptops and servers are now driven by vendor support and security requirements, and that recurring subscription and warranty costs are increasing. “There is no quick, free way out of this,” Daley said. “Storage, network switches, wireless infrastructure and server replacement add up. We’re projecting about $12 million in technology‑related capital needs over six years.”

The CIP presentation also called attention to two items commissioners pressed as likely to materially affect the general fund:

- Drain maintenance and the Bank Intercounty Drain: staff showed a five‑year snapshot in the packet and said drain maintenance expense rose about 29 percent in the last year. Ben cautioned that bonding for the bank drain could increase obligations further depending on the bond structure and timing.

- Animal control facility: staff put an estimated $1,800,000 as a placeholder for replacing the current animal control building, which a facilities assessment described as aging and having costly, failing underground systems. Powers said the building could be salvaged but “it would cost more and not be a wise investment” compared with constructing a new facility.

Staff outlined possible ways to manage the costs, including applying for federal and state grants, negotiating multi‑year vendor agreements to stabilize recurring expenses, and considering partial bonding to “front‑load” projects if the board decides to accelerate work. Ben said a potential bond tied to the bank drain could free up additional dollars to address multiple near‑term priorities but warned that bonding would also affect future cash flow and would require underwriters’ review of the county’s fiscal policies.

Commissioners asked how reducing the county’s building footprint or staff would change maintenance costs. Powers said selling buildings would reduce in‑house workload but not necessarily save money in the short term because contractors tend to charge a premium for emergency work and the county would still have transition costs. He said the facilities team currently operates with five full‑time maintenance staff covering roughly a dozen county buildings, down from a previous historic staffing level.

Ben and staff said the packet is a draft: departments will provide more detail and formal department presentations are planned for June or earlier if the board directs it. The CIP exercise will be revisited each year and used in conversations with rating agencies and potential bond counsel; Ben told commissioners Standard & Poor’s had already asked about the county’s capital planning during recent debt discussions.

Next steps: staff will refine the CIP and follow up with department directors about project timing, grant opportunities and bond scenarios. Department directors are scheduled to present more detailed project budgets in the coming weeks so commissioners can consider adoption or modification in the budget process.