ABOVE: A rendering of the proposed Martin County Justice Center. The Martin County Commissioners in a special work session on Wednesday discussed the future of the project.

FAIRMONT– The Martin County Commissioners spent more than four hours engaged in a work session on the proposed Martin County Justice Center on Wednesday. Along with the full board, some county staff, sheriff’s office personnel, Fairmont Police Department members, finance and architect representatives were present.

To open the meeting, Chief Deputy Corey Klanderud provided some background on the project.

“It’s been eight years now that we’ve been working on this,” Klanderud said.

However, he said that talk of the need for a new jail facility really dates back to 2003 when the National Institute of Corrections did an evaluation of the facility and came up with some recommendations including addressing the crowding, efficiencies and safety of the facility.

“We’ve been working on these issues to make sure we can handle them the best way possible and that’s how we’ve gotten to where we are today without any major changes,” Klanderud said.

In 2006 and 2007 Klanderud said a justice center committee was first formed to look at some of the issues and at that time came up with a plan of three different options including a jail, jail and courts and jail, courts and law enforcement center (LEC), similar to what the committee has been doing in recent years.

“In 2007 they finished on a full justice center… at an estimated total project cost of $23 million,” Klanderud said.

Although that plan was never done, the need has still been there and Klanderud referenced back to some jail inspections and said that while the same issues come up, the sheriff’s office has continued to have high compliance ratings but all of the deficiencies are due to physical plant issues.

Speaking more to what the present justice center committee has done, Klanderud said in 2017 they did a courthouse security assessment done by the Minnesota Sheriff’s Association that identified safety and security issues for staff, inmates and the general public. The committee has since updated camera capabilities and addressed some lock issues.

The committee has also been engaged in a department needs study to see what the different departments require going forward into the next few decades.

“In December 2017 we again produced three options for recommendation… the full justice center in 2017 was… $41.5 million,” Klanderud said.

In 2018, the committee decided to reduce the size of the facility, from 96,800 sq. ft. to 72,163 sq. ft. in order to keep the project more affordable.

“In March of 2018 the budget estimate for the reduced size was $34 million and we started applying for bonding dollars. In 2019 the sheriff’s office did a study on other jails…,” Klanderud said.

The jail is currently a 32 bed max facility but they’re using just 25 beds and are at 80 percent capacity.

Klanderud spoke some about the classification issues, which has been a concern throughout the whole project.

He said since 2019 the committee has applied multiple times for financial assistance from the state and hosted a legislative bonding tour in 2021. Since 2019 it’s also evaluated at least 16 different sites for a new facility.

“In 2020 obviously everyone knows we had covid but we continued to work for financial support from the state and received a $2.167 million bond,” Klanderud said.

Another legislative bonding tour was held in 2022 and the committee reevaluated the needs of the facility and its various departments and came up with the same efficiency, safety and security concerns.

“We had site concepts on the site on Center Creek Drive… we continued in 2022 to get more state money, unsuccessfully,” Klanderud said.

Then the committee started working on a site on Margaret Street but the Fairmont City Council in 2023 prevented the county from using that site so the committee again looked at other sites.

“In 2024 the board made a decision to work toward a full justice center and we landed on the Siems Site that we’re currently working on… and the project budget came in at the end of 2024 in the $55 million range,” Klanderud said.

Commissioner Joe Loughmiller asked about the possibility of Martin County partnering with a neighboring county for jail services.

“We have faced that question as a committee over the previous years and we did consider that as a group,” Klanderud said.

He went on to list multiple issues that have been identified including transport costs which could run anywhere between $500,000 and $1million a year.

Klanderud said they could also run into weather issues with transports and capacity issues if one of the nearby jails is full.

Loughmiller also asked if it would be feasible to not have a secure holding facility in Martin County. Fairmont Police Chief Mike Hunter said that Fairmont’s officers would be taken out of the city that they’re supposed to be serving in order to transport outside of the area.

“We’d have to supplement coverage. It would impact us and coverage here in the city of Fairmont,” Hunter said.

Klanderud added that that wouldn’t just be the case for Fairmont but for the other two police agencies in Martin County.

County Attorney Taylor McGowan noted that the county hasn’t yet explored details of what an agreement with another county would look like for jail services.

“Certain number to keep in mind is today for example we have 15 people in the Martin County Jail and Faribault County has eight… Jackson County has two people so our inmate population is almost doubling what Jackson and Faribault County have normally,” McGowan said.

He said to explore a services agreement with Faribault County, they’d have to be aware that Martin County would entail two-thirds of their total inmates.

“We would turn out to be the primary user of that facility,” McGowan said.

Klanderud shared some numbers from 2011 to 2020 that showed there was an average daily total of 31 inmates and a high of 54 in a single day. However he said since 2020 the average daily population has been 20 inmates.

Switching gears, Loughmiller took it back to security issues and asked if the county is currently able to keep staff safe.

Judge Michael Trushenski said that currently in person hearings are limited to sentencing, contested hearings and drug court.

“We do a lot of our hearings remotely but we do still have a number of in-person type hearings,” Trushenski said.

Luke Cyphers, the county’s building maintenance supervisor, was also asked to speak to some of the maintenance issues his department has dealt with in maintaining the facility over the years.

“On average we are spending about $7,000 with Cress Refrigeration which maintains our four roof air conditions and two rear air-conditions, that include the boilers and air handlers,” Cyphers said.

He said all of the air handlers are at or over their life expectancy and that when he attempted to get quotes for the project, he was told it was too big of a project to get a quote for without spending some money.

Cyphers said the county is spending about $4,000 a year with DeWar Electric maintaining various electrical components including breaker panels.

“Plumbing I would say is really our number one battle in the building and the jail especially is hard on plumbing. A lot of things go down the pipes that shouldn’t and the current wastewater pipe is all cast iron and some of it is starting to deteriorate from the inside,” Cyphers explained.

He spoke to a leaking problem in the evidence room and said that there’s currently a catchment system in place to prevent evidence contamination.

“There’s an exterior gutter for a house hanging underneath a sewer pipe to prevent it from dripping on our evidence,” said Commissioner Jaime Bleess.

“That’s correct,” said Cyphers.

He said that in the spring of 2024 with all of the heavy rain the county also had some serious roof leak issues and that leads into other problems as well.

“It’s a snowball effect. One thing leads into another and another and another. I’ve been told to bandaid these things until we can make a decision on what we’re doing,” Cyphers said.

Bleess asked Cyphers for a ballpark number on how much it would cost to update all of the current building maintenance issues. Cyphers said they would easily be into the millions and County Coordinator Scott Higgins said in 2018 it was estimated at $4.68 million.

Jonathan Loose with Wold Architect and Engineers added that right now it would cost about $10 million just to address deferred maintenance but that it wouldn’t address the safety and security issues.

Commissioner Billeye Rabbe asked how much it would cost to demolish the building and Loose said that it would be rather inexpensive, maybe $1 million or less depending on what is desired to be done with the site.

McGowan asked whether all of the issues mentioned would need to be addresses regardless of whether the jail portion of the building was being utilized and Cyphers said that was correct.

“Any day exceeding 80 degrees I need to run lawn sprinklers on the air conditions because they’re under-powered and they over-heat if it’s above 80 degrees,” Cyphers said.

“You physically have to go up on the roof and run lawn sprinklers?’ Bleess asked.

“One hundred percent,” Cyphers said.

Loughmiller said that the idea of spending $10 to $12 million just to bring the facility to an updated state would only buy them another decade and they would still be short of space and have other issues.

“At the end of the day, all we’ve done is deferred and we’d spend the money and still have to build something else and at a higher cost,” Loughmiller said.

Next, Loose provided an update on the design of the facility. His firm has been engaged with the county on the project since around 2006 and Loose himself since 2017.

“I don’t want to make light of any of the history and some other questions you may have… a lot of our presentation is just looking forward to what’s next,” Loose said.

He said that right now they’re about 75 percent through the construction documents, which is taking the design concept and turning it into drawings a contractor can build from.

“That’s being handed over to ICS to get an updated estimate,” Loose said.

He said the number that came in at the end of 2024 was $55 million and that nothing they’ve done since that time has told them that the building would be more expensive. He added that that number also includes items like furniture and technology.

Loose went over a tentative timeline that includes steps like issuing the project in March and going out for bids in April.

“It’s probably a two year construction process. If you start in the spring of 2025 it would be open sometime in 2027,” Loose said.

George Eilertson with Northland Securities then stepped in and went over the financing piece for the project.

“The financing involves two different financing components. You have the ability to finance with general obligation debt–that’s the full faith and credit of your county standing behind the debt– the most secure type of financing that a municipality can issue.”

He said that general obligation jail bonds would be issued to pay for the jail portion and lease revenue bonds, issued by the Martin County Economic Development Authority, would be used to fund anything considered non-jail.

“Fifty-fifty is about the project cost split,” Eilertson said.

He said that the jail bonds are straightforward financing and that the county has plenty of capacity as well as credit enhancement.

“The other part of your financing, the lease revenue… is a unique financing that a lot of counties utilize,” Eilertson said.

Right now he said the financing is structured for a 30 year term and that it’s not uncommon for a project like this to have a useful life exceeding that.

Going over some other numbers, Eilertson said the county contribution is currently $6 million but that he will continue to work with the board on that number. As it is, the lease revenue bonds are estimated at $21.5 million and the general obligation bonds at $27.5 million.

Bleess asked about the $3.1 million in debt service and pointed out that the county has already levied for $1.8 million of the $3.1 in 2025, which Eilertson agreed with.

Loughmiller said that in December the board had talked about the possibility of a sales tax to help fund the justice center and noted that Winona County is currently trying to go through with that referendum.

“They got approval prior to a moratorium being in place. They took it to a vote and every single township… voted for it except for one that was a tie. It passed by a margin,” Bleess said.

He said that bonds were approved to build the project and once the facility was almost finished they put the question of a sales tax to the voters.

The board then spoke briefly about the moratorium in place on local option sales tax which expires in May.

Commissioner Richard Koons pointed out that Jackson County did the same thing.

“The public felt like it was… they were already stuck with the property taxes… if you want to know how the citizens feel about that, drive over to Jackson and have a cup of coffee,” Koons said.

Loughmiller said he was not interested in playing games with constituents.

“They why haven’t we gone out for a vote if we’re not playing games with constituents?” asked Commissioner Billeye Rabbe.

Bleess said that it’s hard to go out for a vote when there’s not yet a solid plan to show the constituents but that’s why the board continues to discuss the project in an open meeting.

Following the financing portion, Loose and some of his staff briefly walked the board through the site plan, floor plans, rendition of exterior and materials and rendition of interior including lobby/service windows, sheriff/police, courts, jail housing and courtrooms.

While talking about the site plan at the Siems Site, Loughmiller asked what will happen if the city of Fairmont doesn’t vacate the right of way and Loose said he thinks they could work around that but they might lose some parking spots. Loughmiller said he was encouraged by that news.

Rabbe asked if there were any zoning problems with putting the building there and was told no. She asked whether the project could be turned down.

“There’s other avenues they could try to stop. They could deny the vacation of the right-of-way or somehow through planning commission find it doesn’t meet the intent of what they want,” Loose said. “I’m trying not to be too creative with ways the project would stop, knowing the city has generally committed that their police department will still be part of this project.”

McGowan agreed that last time it was discussed the Fairmont City Council was pretty clear with wanting to have the Fairmont Police Department as part of the project.

“It’s just a matter of pressing on the city to finalize the draft and get it to me to review,” McGowan said.

Renderings of both the exterior and interior of the facility were shown. Several samples, such as carpeting and tile, were present for the board to see in person.

Commissioner Kevin Kristenson asked the staff from the courts present how many people they see a week and how often they would use the courtroom.

Trushenski said, “If you have a trial it could be all day. Monday mornings we have court. Even when we have hearings remotely, I’m always appearing from the courtroom.”

County Assessor, Mike Sheplee, then spoke to the tax impact on residents of Martin County due to the project.

He said that on an annual basis with a 29-year term, a market value residential property valued at $300,000 would pay $138 per year. A $250,000 commercial/industrial property, which includes a lot of small businesses, would pay $209 per year. One acre of ag land currently running around $11,000 to $12,000 in value would pay $2.94.

Sheplee added that there are two types of properly tax refunds available, one for homestead residential properties that’s income-based and one that’s special and not income based. He said for senior citizens there’a also a property tax deferral that helps those struggling to make payments stay in their homes.

In wrapping up the work session, next steps were discussed.

“We’re still prepared to be done with the documents at the end of March but we’re still waiting to see how things shake out with the city and land purchase,” Loose said.

He said that construction could start by the summer after procurement of materials and permits are issued by the state.

“It’s my position that we should move forward. We’re here. We have known costs. We have everyone in place to push this over the goal line. It will never get cheaper than it is today and it will take care of a need for the county and bring us up to modern times without going overboard for the next 50 years,” Bleess said.

Koons said he was concerned that he and the rest of the board were lacking plans and information on needs assessments and he questioned how three new commissioners were supposed to be ready to make a decision on a $55 million project.

“We need to slow this ball game down so they can learn and you can learn and I can learn. The former board, when I got here six years ago, had three, four, eight and nine years experience and we’re six years down the road and they left without pushing this through before they left. Why?” Koons asked.

Bleess said it’s due to the timing of the state and bonding. He said it would not cost more to send the project out for bid to see what cost the project comes in at.

“We’ve been paying all of these people to do all of this stuff. Let’s get it over the goal line and go out for bid,” Bleess said.

Koons said that he is hearing from constituents who cannot afford to make payments now and he’s concerned about what extra tax dollars will do to them.

“That’s just to pay the county portion of their taxes and then over in my area… it’s taking them a month and a half or two months of their social security check to pay the school portion (of taxes) and another month to pay their township or city taxes. You’re talking six months of their income, gone, and we’re three months of it,” Koons said.

Bleess said there would be scenarios like this all over the county but that the bottom line is that 10 years from now that same person will have a bigger bill when a future board decided that the upgrades made to the current facility are no longer tenable and then the county will be looking at a $90 million facility.

“It’s been discussed by this board ad nauseam,” Bleess said.

“It’s been discussed multiple times and I’m not convinced,” Koons said.

Loughmiller said he understood both perspectives but that he had a problem with spending $15 to $20 million to kick it down the road.

“If this is what’s right for Martin County, then let’s do it because if we are the next board that pushes this down the road and now we spent $100 million of the county’s money on something we could have done for $50 million today, how are we any better than those that pushed it down the road before us?” Loughmiller asked.

Koons said that the project is already over the cost of where he said he would support it.

“Your leadership is a big part of why we were able to work on what you called a ‘full meal deal,'” Bleess said.

Sheriff Jeff Markquart spoke up and shared the flip side of the coin and said he’s getting calls from constituents all over the county asking when the jail project will be done.

He said that he believes a lot of people on the west side of the county in the MCW school district understand that their taxes will be more in-line with what those on the eastern half of the county, in Fairmont, have to pay.

Markquart said that five of commissioners along with McGowan and himself were elected officials and none were guaranteed to be in their roles after the next election but that they’re depending on the commissioners, past and present, to bring the project forward.

“I respect that information from them. Just because they’re not here anymore doesn’t mean we just start all over,” Markquart said.“There’s no excuses to not know where we are in this project.”

The board did not call for a vote during the work session but it’s understood that Wold will continue to work on the construction documents as planned and bring it back to the board this spring.

Following the meeting, the board went into closed session to discuss the site of the proposed justice center. After closed session, Loughmiller made a motion that the board direct the county attorney to reach out to the current land owner to have new restrictions placed on the billboard contracts for the companies that restricts political ads including social issues and bail bonds and that if McGowan is invited to draft the agreement from the land owner, that he bill them for his time to draft such an agreement.

Koons made an amendment to the motion that the amendment needs to be approved by the board before implementation and that the abstract delivered to the county coordinator or county attorney and reviewed for accuracy.

In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously.