Garrett Neese/Daily Mining Gazette Houghton County is in talks with Portage Township and Houghton about the city annexing the Sharon Avenue property purchased by the county to potentially serve as the site of a new jail.

HOUGHTON — The potential Houghton County jail site on Sharon Avenue is nearing annexation by Houghton, county Administrator Ben Larson said at Tuesday’s board meeting.

Monday, the Portage Township board voted in support of the City of Houghton permanently annexing the Sharon Avenue site.

“It’s not a 50-year life on that; it’d be permanently annexed,” Larson said. “I’m excited about that, I hope you are. Our lawyer’s working with the other two lawyers to make sure we get that done soon.”

While the jail can be located anywhere in the county, the sheriff’s office and district court must be in the county seat.

Portage Township had previously approved a Public Act 425 agreement, a conditional land use transfer between municipalities for a set amount of time. The parcel would have reverted back to Portage Township at the end of nine years if a new jail had not been built.

A resolution formalizing the annexation could come before the board as soon as April, Larson said. The Houghton City Council and Portage township board would also need to pass similar measures.

The county purchased the Sharon Avenue site from the First Apostolic Lutheran Church, which will soon be breaking ground on a new church nearby. Under the terms of the agreement, the church can remain at the Sharon Avenue location until 2026. They will hopefully be able to move into their new church by summer 2025, Larson said.

“I assume if they hire a contractor, the church should be able to go up relatively quickly, and then obviously as soon as they vacate then we can make our next plan there,” he said.

The board will also hold more discussions about what a future jail will look like. Sometime in the next month, the board will hold a public work session with the sheriff and the undersheriff to discuss how large a potential jail might need to be.

The county has made multiple attempts at pursuing a new jail, including one built on county-owned land across Dodge Street and an expansion built behind the courthouse.

The Sharon Avenue property was targeted because of the possibility of later expansion if necessary.

The sheriff’s committee has already been meeting with the sheriff and his staff about the jail, Vice Chair Roy Britz said.

“They’ve been working on it, they’ve been brainstorming what they think they need,” he said.

Some county functions may be relocated to the church building already on-site. 97th District Court Judge Nicholas Daavettila said the district court had not been interested in relocation last fall under the circumstances at that time. The court met with OHM in late February to discuss concerns, after which OHM went back to revise their plans, Daavettila said.

Daavettila and Court Administrator Nickole Jollimore had attended the meeting after hearing rumors the court was being removed from the relocation plans. Chair Tom Tikkanen said the board had made no decision, and was waiting for further conversation with the court.

Previous jail projects centered on a countywide millage, which voters had rejected. Chair Tom Tikkanen said it may be possible to find funding without one.

“Where is it written that we must go for millage?” he said. “There’s an opportunity, I think, for a reallocation of assets and resources that we already have, and concentrate on what our primary tasks are as a county government, namely the sheriff’s department.”

League of Women Voters of the Copper Country had held informational meetings for the public during the most recent millage request for the expansion behind the courthouse. A recurring theme of public comments had been a desire to comment on the form and features of the jail before a finished proposal was put on the ballot.

“Even if the county does end up being able to support this through the mechanism that the Chairman has suggested … I think it would be a very positive effort if we had built into the process that you’re just now beginning to discuss that the public would have an opportunity to weigh in,” she said.

“It doesn’t mean that the public drives the bus and we take referenda, it just means that people need to hear that you’ve thought of something, and that there’s an answer back for why that may or may not be what’s going to be part of the jail,” she said.