Commissioners discuss courthouse mechanical-electrical-plumbing study and tight timeline for any sales-tax ballot

Miami County staff told commissioners that a county-commissioned mechanical, electrical, plumbing and environmental (MEP) study of the historic courthouse will take roughly 45 days to complete after the contractor is selected, and that the resulting schedule leaves limited time to compile the public-engagement materials and ballot language needed to put a sales-tax question before voters this fall.

Shane (staff member) outlined a tentative timeline: bid opening for the MEP work in early July, commission action mid-July, and an estimated 45-day study period that could yield a report by early September. Shane told commissioners the county clerk needs ballot language by Sept. 1 for this election cycle, advance voting begins Oct. 15, and the general election is Nov. 4. "I think you're hamstrung on time," Shane said, noting that the MEP results and any architect-produced design options would be necessary for meaningful public engagement.

Why this matters: commissioners are weighing whether to pursue a renovation that could be costly and may not fully resolve space and accessibility issues, versus building new space that could require temporary court facilities during construction. Staff warned of potential hidden costs from historic-building remediation, including asbestos or other environmental abatement, fire-suppression and egress upgrades, and noted the courthouse roof and elevator already need substantial work.

Key details: staff said previous proposals for substantial replacement or expansion were judged costly by the public the last time the topic was presented. The MEP study is intended to provide an evidence base—for example, whether the building is structurally sound but mechanically worn out—that would inform whether a renovation, partial demolition with new construction, or full replacement is the most prudent option. Jim (facilities) said the roof needs replacement and "it's constantly leaking," and estimated that a new roof alone could cost more than $1 million.

Options and next steps: commissioners discussed pursuing the project through a sales-tax ballot question but acknowledged they may lack time to mount a comprehensive public-engagement campaign before early voting begins. Staff recommended focusing on an off-cycle general-election measure if the commission wants more time, or conducting a year-long engagement process with architects and the state historical office to pursue matching funds and tax-credit possibilities for a restoration.

Commissioners did not take a formal vote to place a sales-tax measure on the ballot during the study session; staff said they will continue the MEP procurement and return with study results and recommended next steps.