Trending
FAIRMONT-- The most recent Minnesota legislative session ended in late May with no state bonding bill, which means that Martin County's request for $19.2 million--which would help fund the construction of a new Public Safety and Justice Center-- was not granted. On Tuesday the Martin County Board of Commissioners held a special work session to discuss the county's next step toward the project.
The county has been in pursuit of the project for the better part of a decade and has been going after a mix of state and federal dollars to help fund the new facility, which, in its most recent design, would cost roughly $35 million, a number that has been growing with inflation as time passes.
Prior to opening the work session, Commissioner Kathy Smith, who is on the core committee along with Commissioner Steve Flohrs, said that it met last week to discuss plans ahead of the work session. Then several key stakeholders gave remarks concerning the absence of funding.
Sheriff Jeff Markquart pointed out that the current law enforcement center was occupied in 1974 with the intention of being a 25-year building.
"The architects said at the time that we should be planning ahead because it would be a 25-year building-- we run that thing 24 hours a day and now the building is literally falling down... the entire building is rotting from the inside out," Markquart said.
He said that electricians and plumbers are there making repairs on a weekly basis and that the infrastructure for the utilities were originally built into the wall, making repairs extra invasive.
Chief Deputy Corey Klanderud added that the MSA safety and security plan done in 2017 highlighted several features that the committee has tried to address to make things better for not only employees and inmates, but the public.
"Walking inmates in the public area has always been one of our concerns," Klanderud said.
He asked that the board do something so that the committee can move forward with making needed improvements.
"We celebrated the 50th year in the building last month. We didn't celebrate because it's not a celebration, but we hit an anniversary," Klanderud said.
County Attorney Taylor McGowan also provided some remarks.
"For our law enforcement to succeed and do its jobs well they need the facility and infrastructure to do that and what we have presently doesn't fit its needs," McGowan said.
As the Sheriff mentioned, McGowan said that the county has essentially been told it will turn into a 90 day facility if it doesn't move forward with a plan.
"What's been holding that off is that we've had a project in the works," he said.
McGowan said that the LEC in its current state is not very impressive and that it could be a hinderance in finding staff to come work there in the future, especially given the shortage of law enforcement officers already.
"New projects cost money and no one wants to see an increase in their taxes but to make government work it requires spending money. It's not just an expenditure, it's an investment," McGowan said.
Jonathan Loose with Wold Architects & Engineers, who has been engaged with the project for several years, said the goal from the beginning has been to support law enforcement and the jail.
"The core committee asked us to look at another version of this project after the state did not approve the bonding bill. There was a lot of momentum behind hopefully getting some funding from the state," Loose said.
He said the design he came up with did not follow the state's B3 guidelines because its funding wouldn't be used.
"We already had a project that was basically finished with a design and I'm not going to go backwards on why we have to step away from that because there's a lot going on there," Loose said. He was referring to a piece of land (800 E. Margaret Street in Fairmont) which the county had tried to rezone for the purpose of building a jail on but the Fairmont City Council turned down last year.
Loose instead spoke about a new project that's very basic in nature and would include a law enforcement center and jail. Current estimated construction costs for that project were shared, as were projected costs four years into the future. What would be a $34.5 million facility this year would be $40.6 million in 2028.
When adding estimated soft costs it goes from a total project cost estimate of $46 million to $55 million in 2028.
He spoke about the potential of adding courts and the justice portion later as a phased project at an additional cost.
"We haven't started any sort of design work on a new site with a new building configuration. I want to make sure it's something the county is interested in moving forward with," Loose said.
Commissioner Jaime Bleess questioned the future courts and Loose said that the discussion among the core committee was that it would be a phased approach.
"It's always going to be cheaper to build it now than in the future and there's more efficiency with doing it all at once but I think just looking at the bottom line of roughly $56 million, the core committee backed off and looked at it as a future phase," Loose said.
However, Bleess said, "I think I could defend doing the whole thing at once a lot easier than doing it in stages even if it is a big bite of the apple. I think the public is aware that we need to do something."
Bill Fahey, special projects associate to the board, the went over the analysis of project costs in respect to potential jail bonds which could be secured, along with cash and investments, including ditch bond proceeds.
At some point it was questioned whether the courts could be paid for with jail bonds and while the answer was no it was said that the county did have some other options, such as lease financing.
The board discussed the need to wait until it has a firm in place for financial management to decide on the best option. Currently the county has an RFP (request for proposal) out for the service. It was also said that the board is waiting until its 2023 audit is done to see where the county is currently at financially.
Commissioner Richard Koons confirmed that the county's bonding capacity was at $60 million.
"If we're going to do this whole thing, there's $10 million difference... I've always said, I can't support this (project) unless it's a full meal deal," Koons said.
He questioned whether there was any portion of the project that could be cut so that the county could afford the whole project, including law enforcement, jail and courts.
After an hour of discussion, Koons said he felt like more information, primarily numbers, was needed.
Smith said, "Richard, are you saying that we should be looking at a smaller project and directing our architects that way?"
Koons said he felt like that is what the county should do and Bleess immediately said he felt like the county should pursue the entire project at once.
"It's clearly a need. There's people in this county I would never expect would say, 'get this done because it costs money.' But there's people in all walks of life in the county who said, 'when are you going to do something?'"
Commissioner Elliot Belgard agreed and said that the reason the county went after a new facility was because it desired to provide a safer facility that required less transfers of prisoners. He said he was in favor of doing the whole project at once.
Smith said she also wanted to do it all but questioned whether they would have the money to do it.
"That's why the core committee looked at doing it in two phases. We've been listening to Bill and people telling us what we can afford. I agree, it makes perfect sense to do it at once... if we can come up with the money but I don't know," Smith said.
Belgard said that the county had a perfect piece of property which the city of Fairmont nixed. Even though a one year moratorium is placed on the property, he questioned whether the county could look at continuing to pursue the location without changing the design.
"We could meet with the city and say, 'you cost the taxpayers a lot of money, you're facing some other lawsuits, have you rethought it?'" Belgard said.
Several of the commissioners said that that was a good thought. Belgard asked Loose whether it would be cheaper to go with building the facility there, rather than coming up with a design for a different location.
"It's a funny calculation because if we wait more, we're fighting against inflation," Loose said.
He also pointed out that courts had not fully been designed for that site so that there would be an added cost there.
Koons reiterated that he felt like the whole project had to be done at once.
"I've seen too many projects where people build a house with plans to build a garage in four years and it doesn't happen," Koons said.
He asked for more information on different square footage options. Loose said that Wold has been studying the project for a decade and has generated different reports about the current and desired square footage and that they've scaled back as directed by the core committee.
Smith agreed that the full board has seen all of the numbers. She suggested that someone else step in to take a spot on the core committee if they were not happy with the information provided thus far.
In closing, the board agreed it had no appetite to build a facility without the courts included. Bleess asked Loose whether he could design a facility at a price point of $50 million. Loose said that they "probably" could.
In closing, the board talked about when the best time was to bid the project. Loose said that fall was the best time but that it could be done in the spring. The board expressed concerns that the fall would be too soon because it may not have all of the financial information needed. However, Belgard pointed out that after January, the composition of the board would change by 60 percent as three new members would be joining after November elections.
As Tuesday's discussion was a work session, the board will further discuss the matter at a future county commissioner meeting.