Winona and Winona city officials continue predesign work for joint public-safety options; county to study LEC reuse

Winona County commissioners received an update Aug. 12 on the multi‑year effort to evaluate a joint public‑safety campus and possible reuse of the county-owned Law Enforcement Center (LEC). The city of Winona has authorized predesign work for the Central School site; the county will pursue a parallel study to evaluate repurposing the existing LEC building.

Jeff Haima, a member of the LEC task force, summarized recent city and county steps and state-grant complications. He said the city’s Aug. 4 decision moved the project from an earlier planning phase into predesign at the Central School site after the state signaled vocabulary and sequencing limits on the $7,500,000 grant previously authorized: “Predesign gives an overview of suitability of the site for the intended purpose and what it would look like along with a ballpark cost idea.” Haima told the board the city is re-submitting grant applications for the 2026 bonding session and that the county’s future support will likely depend on additional state funding.

Commissioners pressed staff for specifics and timelines. Several commissioners, including Begley and Meyer, said they support having Klein McCarthy or a similar firm perform a space study that examines two scenarios: (1) what it would take to remodel the current LEC to meet county needs alone, and (2) what it would cost and require for both the county sheriff and the city police to share the remodeled facility. Commissioner Begley noted existing documentation from prior jail and LEC studies and asked that the new scope build on that prior work; staff confirmed prior digital plans exist and that reusing that knowledge could lower study costs.

County staff and commissioners discussed capital needs already identified for the LEC, including HVAC, sprinklers and cell demolition/remodeling, and whether some repairs could be completed while the building remained occupied or would require temporary relocation of functions. Commissioners were split on the timing and scope of capital work: some urged the county to proceed with necessary safety-related repairs (sprinkler and HVAC) even without final decisions on consolidation; others counseled caution against starting projects that might be re‑done if the site’s long-term use changes.

Board direction and next steps: The board asked staff to coordinate with the city manager, the sheriff, the county engineer and Klein McCarthy (or an equivalent space-planning consultant) to prepare a proposal and cost estimate covering both scenarios (county-only LEC remodel and shared county/city remodel) and to report back. Commissioners indicated they want contract proposals that itemize costs for option A and option B and timelines to inform 2026 capital planning. No contract award or binding funding decision was made Aug. 12.

Ending: Commissioners stressed continued communications with city officials and asked staff to return proposed study scopes and cost estimates before the board commits funds to design or major capital work.