By Sara QuamFew would disagree that the Rock County Law Enforcement Center is inadequate. Whether the facility’s condition actually warrants spending and, if so, how to spend the money are the questions. Rock County Commissioners took the first step in securing money for a new or remodeled jail by hosting a bond hearing for a five year capital improvement plan (CIP) Monday night.The CIP allows for either Law Enforcement Center renovation or new construction, a fiber loop for county computer operations and a new courthouse garage in 2005. Not knowing costs for a law enforcement building project, commissioners indicated they would probably bond for about $1 million and supplement the rest of the project from an existing building fund.The hearing drew about 10 people, who got the chance to review the process of a county bond and offer opinions on how to handle the Law Enforcement Center. Dave Lorenzen, a Denver Township officer, asked the board what the difference was between bonding for this CIP and the vote five years ago to bond for law enforcement improvements."The public has expressed its feelings already. I’m not saying they were right or wrong, but people in the townships and county are going to think it’s the same thing," Lorenzen said.Five years ago, voters turned down a ballot question to bond for $1 million to renovate the LEC. Through the current process the county is using, voters don’t have a direct say in the bonding. But they do have options.If the board votes to use general obligation bonds to pay for projects through the CIP, the bonding is subject to a reverse referendum that can be forced through a petition signed by 263 voters (5 percent of last election’s turnout).The petition would have to be completed by June 23.The ballot question would be whether to bond at all, not whether voters agreed with parts or all of the CIP itself.The 2000 vote failed by less than 200 votes.Commissioner Jane Wildung said, "The issue last time had to do with whether they thought it was the right project. I heard so many comments that people thought it should have been built new. There was division among the employees, and without their support, it couldn’t go through."Wildung said the "tremendous safety and security issues" make the project necessary — whether newly constructed or remodeled.Springwater Township Chairman Darrell Hoeck said he favored building new over repairing the current facility."It’s like any old building. I just about don’t think it is worth going after to repair," Hoeck said.Clinton Township board member Steve Top said he would support building a new LEC if it didn’t mean a remodeling project for the abandoned one would also sneak up on taxpayers.County Board Chairman Ken Hoime said, "We have good employees who deserve a good place to work. … That building is chopped up and really outdated."About one-third of the space inside the LEC is unusable. Another issue has been security: once inside, people can leave without having to have an escort. Also, there is no holding area for prisoners when first arrested or when waiting for court appearances. There have been up to four prisoners on a bench that serves as a holding area. Sometimes, officers are left with no option but to handcuff prisoners to folding chairs. Evidence storage and moisture problems on communication equipment are also problems in the current LEC.Commissioner Ron Boyenga said convenience of the location is a consideration for keeping the existing facility.County Administrator Kyle Oldre said plans for the existing LEC, built in 1900, are a part of the study.Wildung said, "The old law enforcement center is essentially unusable so it’s hard to vote to spend for a new one until we can have a plan for the old."Commissioner Richard Bakken said he leans toward remodeling the current building to keep the courthouse campus in tact, something that the city and county are proud to feature in photographs and tours.Robert Tangeman, Luverne resident, said, "This courthouse here is something I am so proud of, and I brag about it to everybody. … The outside of that law enforcement center is architecturally beautiful and a nice match to the courthouse. It’d be a crime to tear it down."Bakken said, "If we can’t make it work to remodel, I guess we’ll have to build new, but I’d sure like to know that for a fact before we bring in the wrecking ball."The CIP is preliminary at this point. The state has to review it even if a petition doesn’t force the issue on the ballot.Oldre said, "It’s a big decision for this county because whatever you do, it’s a commitment to a building that will last another 80 years."(GRAPHIC cutline)Costs for taxpayersCounty Commissioners had the hearing Monday in order to get public input for bonding up to $1.75 million, even though commissioners say it will probably end up being closer to $1 million.In that case, the effects of the tax increase would be felt at 2.44 percent in the county line item. (Of course, school or city taxes wouldn’t change.)For a residential homestead property with an estimated market value of $133,500, the difference would be $11.08 in 2006.For a residential homestead property with an estimated market value of $63,500, the difference would be an increase of $3.47 in 2006.For farmland with a value of $59,000, the increase would be $5.93 in 2006.If the county bonds, it has 20 years to pay it back, so tax increases would last that long.
