Lincoln County commissioners opened a lengthy discussion Dec. 23 on next steps for the Old Courthouse after the county’s justice functions move to a new justice center. Paul Anderson, commission administrative assistant, summarized the committee’s work: three committee meetings, a tour of the building, review of a 2020 architectural report and contractor estimates.

Committee options presented to the board included: short-term roof and attic structural improvements (contractor memo estimate shown at roughly $400,000–$500,000); a remodel without a full roof replacement (the packet referenced a figure near $1,600,000 for structural and interior work); a full roof plus full interior remodel (estimate cited near $9,600,000); and demolition with an exterior facade fix and asbestos remediation (contractor quote discussed in the $1.69 million range, plus demolition cost estimates that varied in the presentation). Presenters repeatedly cautioned these are early estimates that require updated engineering, full bidding and contingency planning.

Commissioners debated trade-offs. Some said a short-term, lower-cost roof fix would "kick the can down the road" but preserve the building while the county defines future use; others argued that partial repairs might require repeated work and that a large-scale investment would better secure 20–30 years of service. A few commissioners expressed skepticism about the cost estimates and urged hiring additional architects or contractors to produce current bids rather than rely on older 2020 figures. One commissioner recommended putting the issue to a public vote if the county pursues a large capital plan.

Multiple public commenters urged the county to act on maintenance previously recommended in 2020 and to involve the public more closely if a major capital decision is pursued. Speakers questioned where funds discussed in prior bond efforts went after a 2020 bond failed and asked the commission to solicit broader community input before spending taxpayer money.

The commission did not take action Dec. 23. Several members asked staff to obtain updated engineering assessments, clearer phase-cost breakdowns (for a phased approach starting with a roof/rafter fix), and public-engagement steps before the board considers funding options or a ballot question.

Next procedural steps recommended during the meeting included: obtaining current bids/engineering input on phased options; clarifying asbestos-remediation costs; and scheduling additional public outreach. No funding or demolition authorization was approved during the session.