“Sticker shock” was a comment made by a few members of the Sherburne County Board during a workshop meeting Tuesday.

 

That was the reaction after Patrick Sims, construction manager with Adolfson and Peterson, gave the board a price tag of between $36.7 and $44.5 million for the potential Government Center expansion project.

 

Back in 2007-2008 when the board was considering an expansion, the cost had been estimated at $29-$34 million on the high end. That plan was centered around updating and expanding the courts and creating more space for county departments. The project was put on hold when the economy went bad and all the projections about countywide growth never materialized.

 

But talk of reviving the project began again last year, and a building expansion committee was established last July. This August, the county board approved a contract with BWBR Architects to review the plans from 2008 and gather input from the courts and county departments to develop a new master plan. 

 

Tuesday, Doug Wild of BWBR reviewed the new concept, which included a new multi-story courts building, a walkway from the jail to the courts to move in-custody prisoners, a new Government Center entrance connecting the two buildings, and $7.1 million in renovations to the existing court area to accommodate other departments relocating there.

 

Wild presented the board with two options. The first, with a price tag of $36.7 million, did not include a connecting atrium to the Government Center, nor did it include a third floor on the courts building.

 

The second option, at $44.5 million, included the atrium connection, third floor finished space to accommodate the 10th Judicial District and “shell” space for two additional courtrooms.

 

Commissioner Rachel Leonard said she wasn’t expecting the high cost.

 

“I want a quality facility at the lowest cost, but $45  million blows my mind.” she said. “I don’t want a Cadillac. I want just a plain little old Ford if that would work.”

 

Judge Mary Yunker said the judges did their best to keep the cost down. They cut storage space and agreed not to build separate chambers with full accommodations for each judge.

“We understand $45 million is a lot of money,” she said. “We’ve done everything we can to be a part of this team and cut the cost as best we can.”

 

Commissioner Bruce Anderson, who was sheriff at the time of the first plan in 2008, said the county had to consider whether the federal government should be involved financially and in the planning of the expansion.

 

He said originally, the plan was designed to accommodate federal prisoner transfers and potentially have a federal magistrate on site. He felt the county should know if there are new federal design standards, and if the feds were still interested in participating. If the building wasn’t up to federal standards, he said, the county might lose the federal contract.

 

Judge Walter Kaminsky said one option might be to  locate a federal courtroom on the third floor of the new building. That would ease the flow of travel by eliminating the transport of some federal inmates to the Twin Cities.

 

Wild said there are more stringent standards for space and height of federal courtrooms. He said he would look into the design.

 

Jessica Green of Northland Securities presented the board with different financing options for the project. The county could potentially contribute $17 million up front, with bonding for the remainder. For Option 1, the annual debt service over 12 years would be $2.88 million. For Option 2 the debt service over 17 years would be about the same.

 

Green said the county would not have to levy any additional dollars to cover the debt, since two existing bonds with debt service totalling $2.89 million will be paid off by 2019.

 

But Administrator Steve Taylor said the county would be investing a lot into the project.

 

“We’re using the bulk of our cash for this project, so to fund other priorities countywide, we’re going to be struggling a little bit,” he said. “If we’re looking at a fiberoptic or broadband project, that may or may not require public funding from us, we’re going to struggle with that.”

 

The board didn’t make a decision on whether or not to move forward with the project. But Sims said in order to get competitive bids early in 2016, the board would have to make a decision by the end of the year so schematic plans could be drawn.

 

“If we can be bidding by February or March, we’re going to get more attention from contractors, particularly on a project this size,” he said. 

 

There are two more meetings this year where the board can vote on the project - Dec. 1 and Dec. 15.