Tuesday afternoon, two longstanding issues came before the Grant County Administrative Committee. The first concerns the iconic Courthouse Dome, which is one of a number of items that needs to be repaired or restored at the landmark structure.

The other was raising the idea of creating a county administrator position, an idea that has been floated around for more than a decade, and has been soundly rejected by the full County Board of Supervisors several times.

The meeting started with County Maintenance Director Gary Pluemer telling the committee the ornamental ball from the top of the dome flagpole fell off recently, and luckily did not cause any damage on its way to the ground, avoiding breaking any windows on the structure.

Because the item does not affect the flagpole itself, it was determined not to reinstall, as doing so would mean contracting a crane for the job, which would cost more than $6,000.

Then Pluemer turned to what was below where the ball once rested, telling the committee that there have been leaks in the dome, and leaks in the flat roof of the courthouse.

“We think we have them fixed,” Pluemer told the committee, but saying the years of holes forming and leaking in water before they get fixed have damage adding up.

“The leaks have taken its toll,” Pluemer continued, noting he believes he sees some rot in the wood framing of the dome, and damage has occurred to the plaster in portions of the building.

“We need to do some thing about it,” Pluemer said.

“We have a lot more projects to do beyond that dome,” Committee Chair Pat Schroeder said, pointing to things like the air conditioning system in the courthouse, which recently failed, as well as issues with leaks in the heating system at Orchard Manor, for which the county is looking at designs for a new system there.

Schroeder noted they were not going to take the dome off the courthouse - an idea that had been floated by supervisors in the 1950s - but they would need to find funding for such work elsewhere, and need to see if there were grants to preserve historic structures.

It has been an issue the county had been dreading for some time.

During the facade restoration of the courthouse which took place in 2014-2015, the county had Insite, the architectural consulting firm that handled that project, assess the dome, and give rough estimates of making repairs.

The facade project cost $2.2 million, which replaced worn sandstone sections of the building, dealt with drainage around the courthouse, and rectified previous repairs that caused moisture to be retained.

County Board Chair Robert Keeney noted that the initial estimates at that time were 2-3 times the facade project in 2015.

“There are only two contractors in the world that do that work,” Keeney added about construction of the dome, which is wood framing holding up the glass windows.

With the tight 2024 budget having to push capital projects to the debt levy in order to make room for salary changes to retain and hire staff, it meant additional work like the dome would likely need outside funding for more than minor repairs.

After talking about options for the courthouse air conditioning system, and unifying control systems for buildings to be on the same platform, the committee turned its sights to something not physically structural, but administratively structural - creating a county administrator. “This has been brought up five times since I have been on the board,” said Keeney, who joined the county board in 2004.

It has been brought up, with presentations from the Wisconsin Counties Association, with testimonials from other counties that have gone this route, and been pushed in legal opinions by the Wisconsin Attorney General office.

And every single time, the Grant County Board of Supervisors has rejected the premise, instead sticking to the setup that has been in effect essentially since the 1980s - with the County Board Chair having responsibility of much of what an administrator would do, although for the past decade without the title.

Keeney gave a brief history of the problem - in 1985, the State Legislature put into statute that there needed to be someone designated to handle administrative duties in each county within two years.

For about half the counties, they designated the county board chairperson with those duties. For Grant County, that made the post a full-time position.

In 2011, then-Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen wrote an opinion stating that it was against statutes for county board members to have administrative authority - that the person needs to be an employee of the county, or elected by the county as a whole, not elected by the board itself.

That left Grant County in a predicament - do they continue on with the chairperson holding the title, and face some legal fight, or do they create an administrative position.

Van Hollen’s opinion gave three options - a county executive, which is elected by everyone in the county (and used only in the most populous counties of the state), a county administrator, or designate and existing employee an administrative coordinator.

Grant County chose to designate an administrative coordinator, but all of the duties have remained with the county board chair.

Currently, IT Director Shane Drinkwater is designated the county’s administrative coordinator, but all it is is a title, Keeney said, and in his position, he sees the need to not have one person have the title with no power, and another having some of the duties, but not the ability to handle all of the administrative duties.

“We struggled to keep our heads above water,” Keeney said of the past few years, including the pandemic.

Schroeder echoed the sentiment by those who have opposed the idea the previous five times it has come up - that it will take power away from the board, and that the county will suffer if you make the wrong hire.

“Let’s cut the county board to three people, because we won’t have any authority,” Schroeder remarked. He said when he brought the subject up to his wife, he heard “hopefully you don’t get the stupid ones like Lancaster got the last two times,” remarking about most recent city administrators who resigned from their positions.

“I have faith in you,” Pat told Keeney.

Keeney said relying on a chairperson means when they retire from the board, there will be a void, and a bad chair could come in.

“The only good thing is they only last two years,” Schroeder responded, noting the term of a session for the chairperson (unless removed by the board before).

Keeney stated that with the impending loss of Finance Director Amanda Degenhardt, who has submitted her resignation, the county government is in transition, and there are things that the current setup cannot tackle.

That was reiterated by both Degenhardt and Drinkwater, who noted that currently there is not a position in the county that can keep individuals or departments accountable.

“They are not there seeing the day-to-day,” Degenhardt said of supervisors who sit on committees. “Bob doesn’t have the authority of what the administrator could do,” she continued.

“I’m tired of kicking the can down the road,” Keeney said. “It gets too big and you hurt your toe.”

The committee voted to move the item to the full county board, with Schroeder voting against.