The county board decision to demolish the 1954 courthouse addition will lead to a final schematic design for the new judicial center and the scope of remodeling in the oldest portion of the courthouse.

The next big item the board needs to tackle: Funding.

BKV Group, the county’s architect, has estimated the cost at $19.73 million for the original plan. Now, $2.97 million will be added to the bill for demolishing the ’54 building, adding 14,500 square-feet to the new building and remodeling the old courthouse. Further expense will be needed to furnish the additional space and the old courthouse.

Divided payments to the contractors and construction management firm will start upon the beginning of construction, meaning the board needs to resolve the financing before the groundbreaking, planned for October.

For the jail portion, a state law allows the county to issue special bonds that qualify for the state’s credit rating and are not subject to a public referendum.

The rest of the construction can be funded either by general obligation bonds or lease revenue bond.

General obligation bonds have about a quarter-percent lower interest rate than lease revenue bonds. But the county explains the impact on taxes varies since the tax is levied against the market value of the properties with general obligation bonds, while it is spread on tax capacity with lease revenues bond.

General obligation bonds are also counted among the long-term debt of the county, while the lease revenue bonds are not. The difference would reflect on the county’s credit rating for issuing other bonds or taking out loans.

The most significant difference between the two funding methods is the requirement of a public referendum. With general-obligation bonds, the county’s voters would need to approve the project in a referendum; if the county leases bonds, no referendum is needed.

County Administrator Ron Gabrielsen has been vocal about his preference for non-referendum leased bonds.

Besides the accounting advantages of leasing bonds, he has emphasized in several occasions in public that the public delegates these kinds of decisions to their representatives.

But Commissioner Dan Belshan has been critical of the idea, describing the lease revenue bonds as a loophole to escape from a referendum. &uot;It stops the voters from making the big decision,&uot; he said.

The Committee to Save the ’54 Building, whose attempt to prevent the county from demolishing the building has now failed, is shifting its charges to the new judicial center project as a whole, and submitted an inquiry to the board asking about the financial viability.

The board Tuesday decided to schedule a workshop to distill the details of funding options the county can pursue.