Over the objections of two commissioners who want to take it slow, the county board Tuesday moved forward with plans to explore an off-site judicial building to solve the county’s space and security needs.

Wednesday, August 22, 2001

Over the objections of two commissioners who want to take it slow, the county board Tuesday moved forward with plans to explore an off-site judicial building to solve the county’s space and security needs.

The board authorized an architect to create a plan for a new off-site judicial center that would likely move the courts, jail and law enforcement center out of the downtown courthouse, freeing up space for other departments to remain downtown.

The planning can begin as soon as the architect can complete a study assessing the county’s jail needs.

&uot;It’s not a Band-Aid fix and it’s not a completely new courthouse,&uot; said commissioner Mark Behrends, who first proposed the move two weeks ago. &uot;It’s something in the middle and it will work.&uot;

Chairman Dave Mullenbach, who voted against the proposal at the last board meeting but supported it Tuesday, said he decided it was time to move forward.

&uot;We need to get going on this and I think it’s essential that we do,&uot; Mullenbach said. If the board finds a better alternative, it can still change its mind, he said. &uot;It’s not mortar and bricks yet. It’s another step in the process of planning this.&uot;

The county has already considered 14 different courthouse plans; the judicial building plan will be scheme 15.

Commissioners Glen Mathiason and Dan Belshan voted against the move, saying they wanted to wait for more information on the jail’s needs. Both wondered why the board rushed to act Tuesday, rather than wait until they could consult new county administrator Ron Gabrielsen, who starts Monday.

Mathiason said the county should wait until a National Institute of Corrections (NIC) jail study is complete before moving forward with any plans.

&uot;I just feel that it’s very important that we have that study completed,&uot; Mathiason said. &uot;We’re speculating at this time.&uot;

Belshan said he wants to continue considering other options until the NIC study is done.

&uot;The fact is that building another jail is not the only option,&uot; Belshan said. He said the county could consider a low-security jail for inmates who are allowed out of custody on work-release.

&uot;If we really get some hard-time people that are really nasties, we can ship them out (to other jails) for $60 a day,&uot; he said.

The other commissioners, however, said enough studies have been done and stressed the architect’s study would also be complete before any plans are drawn up.

Commissioner Dan Springborg said the board has spent hours in workshops hearing expert opinions on the county’s jail needs. &uot;If those facts weren’t facts and those experts weren’t experts, we all wasted our time,&uot; Springborg said. &uot;I don’t think we did that.&uot;

Sheriff Don Nolander pointed out that Tim Thompson of the Minnesota Department of Corrections attended a board workshop this summer and gave a presentation on the jail’s needs.

&uot;We can tell right now from the numbers you look at that the jail’s full,&uot; Springborg said.

But Belshan said he has seen no studies on paper reporting on the jail’s needs.

&uot;This county board has never done a jail study,&uot; Belshan said. &uot;We have not had any experts come in.&uot;

&uot;We have no data in front of us on paper,&uot; he said.

&uot;You probably don’t have them because you threw the paper away,&uot; Nolander told Belshan.

Earlier during the meeting, the board heard from a parade of residents who urged caution and said they want the courthouse to stay downtown.

Commissioners reiterated that they plan to keep the downtown courthouse operating no matter what, and that the judicial building plan only involved moving the court, jail and law enforcement off site.