The new courthouse project will stay on its original course after the Freeborn County Board decided &045; again &045; to demolish the 54 building, dismissing a proposal to sell or keep it, by 3-2 vote Tuesday.

Auctioneer Howard Jensen has been claiming the county can save nearly $500,000 by selling the building. Jensen alleges he has a few prospective buyers, including his son Greg Jensen.

&uot;You left us with the impression that this building is worthless,&uot; Jensen said. &uot;Governments &045; state, city, county and everybody &045; are short of money. We all agree on that. I’m not against progress. I told you all along. And in fact, this (sale) throws no effect on the rest of project.&uot;

But Commissioner Dave Mullenbach entered a motion to reconfirm the original resolution to tear down the building.

&uot;The decision for the Freeborn County Criminal Justice Center project has been delayed far too long already. We have a lawsuit that cost the citizens of Freeborn County millions of dollars. I think it’s time to concentrate on the construction phase of this project and get on with it,&uot; Mullenbach said.

&uot;After reviewing the opinions of judges, the county attorney, Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust, who is our carrier, Association of Minnesota Counties, county maintenance department, countless phone calls, and people stopping me on the street, my comfort level knows the right decision was made in July 2002 to go ahead and raze the ’54 building,&uot; he said.

Commissioner Dan Springborg seconded the motion. Springborg mentioned that his constituents are convinced that remodeling the building would be very costly and that enough space for the future expansion of county government is incorporated in the new courthouse project.

&uot;I don’t see the advantage of keeping this building and maintaining it over the years,&uot; he said.

The county plans to replace the space lost by demolishing the ’54 building &045; the rectangular structure on the north end of the courthouse &045; with space in the new judicial center that will be added onto the south end of the courthouse. A new jail, sheriff and police offices and court facilities will be part of that addition.

The motion was approved by Mullenbach, Springborg and Chairman Mark Behrends. Commissioners Dan Belshan and Glen Mathiason, who represent the rural areas of the county, opposed it.

One of the reasons the three commissioners opposed preserving the ’54 building was a liability issue, they said.

The Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust (MCIT) reviewed Jensen’s idea and concluded that allowing a private party to possess the building would increase the county’s potential liability.

John Bower, MCIT account executive, wrote in a letter to County Administrator Ron Gabrielsen that joint use of parking lots, security, fire, vacancy and asbestos would be all be risky elements arising from the sale.

Jensen also has suggested that the county could keep the building for the future use, if it doesn’t sell it, an idea which Belshan supported.

But Bower pointed out that insurance companies severely restrict insurance coverage on buildings that are vacant or unoccupied, and vacancy tends to increase the probable frequency or severity of losses by fire, vandalism and water damage due to freezing of pipes.

&uot;Taking steps to eliminate or control the county’s exposure to loss before a loss occurs is a critical element to the ongoing success of your loss-control program and the cost of managing risk,&uot; Bower wrote.

Contractors will bid for the $25.7 million new courthouse project today, and the project will start with a groundbreaking ceremony rescheduled to noon on Tuesday, Feb. 18.

Belshan questioned why the bidding for footing the judicial center is tied to the demolition of the ’54 building. Gabrielsen said it is because footings and demolition require the same kind of machinery.

One local contractor complained about the application of the prevailing-wage rule to the construction. The contractor contended the higher wages required under the rule would unfairly put smaller companies at a disadvantage to win bids.