Preservation Society talks saving strategy
August 19, 2010 at 4:14 pm in Worthington Daily Globe
JACKSON The Jackson Preservation Alliance will gather evidence that the 1938 portion of the Jackson County Resource Center is of historical significance in hopes of utilizing the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act (MERA) to halt the demolition of the structure, the group’s president said at its meeting Thursday in the Jackson American Legion.
Continue Reading
How is this building historically significant? Because people went to school there? Big deal! There are thousands of buildings where people went to school. How come we haven’t tried to save all of the one-room country school houses? And how many of these people walk through the building and take a trip down memory lane other than when they need to go get their drivers license renewed? It’s an old building with no architectural significance and little historical significance.
They also mention the vote. We voted to decide if we wanted to issue bonds or not. It wasn’t a vote to save the building. So, the commissioners found a way to meet their space needs without having to issue bonds. Now, this group wants us to spend more money than the commissioners are currently proposing and issue bonds to save a building that has outlived its usefulness. This group also doesn’t want people to know that Jackson County will have to heat 100% of the building and will only be able to utilize 60% of the space because of the auditorium. Not to mention it currently cost six figures to keep the heat and electricity on in that building every year.
Finally, they say it’s the Jackson, not Jackson County, Preservation alliance. So they even admit that the building means nothing to the rest of the citizens of Jackson County. So, they’re asking all of the citizens of Jackson County to waste their tax dollars on their “memories.” I guess I find it apalling to ask the Commissioners to waste public funds on a private interest. You don’t need a building to remember your high school days and we certainly don’t need to waste tax dollars to preserve your private memories. Look at your yearbooks and stop wasting our money.
Like or Dislike:
15 
14
mnborn, you should educate yourself before you comment. You need to know what the Jackson Preservation Alliance is about before you make assumptions. No one is asking for taxpayers to spend any more money to renovate and preserve the building. What they are asking is to use the money that the commission has already decided to spend for a good stewardship use of the facility. Sound design/use proposals have been presented but completely disregarded by the commissioners, and for some reason not made public until more than a year after they were presented. Are you aware of that? The Preservation Alliance is looking at renovating and marketing the space. If the county does not want to use it, it seems that marketing it for a developer is not a bad idea. There are great potentials for use.
You ask what makes it historically significant? No, it’s not “reminiscing about high school days there.” I did not attend high school there, but I can see the value of preserving a Public Works Administration project from the FDR New Deal program. This history is significant. Putting people to work with a purpose during the great depression saved many families from starvation and desitution. It would be an affront to those workers who toiled with pride and honest, hard work to feed their families and provide a lasting facility for the future. This building has NOT outlived its usefulness. However, the commissioners refuse to even consider these options.
Like or Dislike:
10 
17
Actually, I’m very educated about the Resource Center proposals. I’ve seen every proposal that has been presented in detail. Have you? It’s also very interesting that 4 of the 5 current commissioners were against building new before the last election. After looking at the dollars figures of all of the options, 3 of them are for moving forward with a new building and 1 is riding the fence even though he did vote to issue the bonds for a new building. That same commissioner had over a year to try to find an entity that would utilize the building, and he couldn’t find anyone crazy enough to stick the money into making the building serviceable or pay the utility bill (not to mention there wouldn’t be any parking). He admited that right at the public hearing where they decided to issue bonds to build a new building earlier this year. Also, many of the proposals to save the building left out “little” things like asbestos removal and things like that. It’s easy to say the commissioners “rejected” proposals without giving the reasoning for their rejection. The proposals didn’t meet their needs and were and left out high ticket items to artificially lower the cost of the proposal.
You bring up the New Deal and all of the workers that built the 38 building and laud those people for looking to the future. Interestingly enough, that’s exactly what the commissioners are doing, looking to the future. Operating out of old and inefficient infrastructure is not forward thinking. Giving up real estate that is ideal for developing the infrastructure needed for county services is ridiculous and the opposite of forward thinking again.
We should “market” the space? How do you propose the commissioners meet their space needs? They could tear down the new side, but where would employees and customers park? Where would the patrons of the 38 side park? These are the logistics that the commissioners and the building committees have thought about, obviously the Preservation Alliance hasn’t.
When the 38 building was built, there was a need for a school and the people who built knew it needed to be built to ensure a bright future for Jackson. The commissioners are making the exact same decision 70 years later. Go see the Hoover Dam and stop living in the past and standing in the way of progress.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
Mnborn can you explain to me since it seems like you have all the answers on this issue, why are the commissioners running the county like a dictatorship instead of a democracy? Ever since it first came up some eight years ago the general public attitude hasn’t changed. It seems to me like the commissioners just want to put up a monument to themselves. With this being an election year for some you would think that they would want to end their term with being remembered for some of the good things that they had done instead of the arrogance that they are showing. It also sounds like that the four commissioners are telling the voters that said no to the vote (majority of the voters that voted said no) are wrong and that they dont know what they want. If that is the case then maybe the voters were also wrong in voting the commissioners in.
Like or Dislike:
6 
9
Well, first you need to realize that we live in a representative democracy (or Republic if you prefer). That means we elect a few people to make decisions for us, which is exactly what the commissioners are doing. Heck, Abe Lincoln couldn’t get elected to a second term as US Representative because he spoke out against the Mexican-American War. He was right, but he still wasn’t re-elected. Read “Profiles In Courage” someday and you’ll realize that elected officials sometimes need to make decisions that are contrary to the will of the mob, because the mob is fickle and rarely has all of the info that the elected officials have and is often wrong. And your “monument to themselves” comment is simply hyperbole. Their names won’t be found anywhere on or in the new building. How about we debate facts rather than throw out pointless rancor…uninformed rancor is how we got to where we are today…
Second, we do have the right to petition a vote when it comes to bonding, which is exactly what some of the citizens of Jackson County did. The majority said that they didn’t want to issue bonds, so the commissioners found a way to meet the needs of the county without bonding. Seems to me like they’re doing exactly what the citizens asked them to do.
So, go ahead and vote your commissioner out in November. You have every right. I for one respect every commissioner that took an honest look at the numbers and voted to move forward despite constant uninformed criticism and letters to the editor. It takes a lot more fortitude to do what is right knowing full well you may lose as a result than to cater to those who whine the loudest.
Like or Dislike:
7 
7
ok so if they commissioners looked at the best economical intrest to the taxpayers then why is their proposed new building when all said and done cost almost 1.5 million dollars more than the the renovation estimate
Like or Dislike:
4 
9
First, the esitmate to renovate the 38 building is slightly more than $7 million. The original proposal that would have required bonding was a little less the $7.5 million. The current proposal is only $2.5 million and won’t require bonding. So your numbers are not correct.
Second, there is more to consider than the upfront price tag. A new building will be significantly more efficient and will cost less to maintain. That makes building new a no brainer when the upfront costs are so close.
Like or Dislike:
7 
6
the last CIP for the county said it would be built in 3 phases; first costing 2.5 million; second costing 3 million; and then the third phase costing 3 million (which was published in the Jackson County Pilot last week). last time i added those up its 8.5 million which is still higher than the the estimate for renovation and many people renovate to make there homes for example more energy efficent. so a new building isnt necessarily a no brainer. new isnt always better.
and to your question at the very beginning “how is this building historically significant?” would you plow up Gettysburg for fields to produce more food? i know i wouldn’t. i understand the historical significants of Gettysburg even though i didn’t fight there.
Like or Dislike:
3 
10
parking lot!!!! where do you want us to park, down by the river?
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
OK, you’re right if you add up all the stages, but it wouldn’t have to be built in stages if we would have bonded for it. As far as efficiency, there is no way to remodel the 38 side to make it as efficient as building new because of all of the unuseable space. The hallways are wider than they need to be, and the auditorium couldn’t be used for anything. Again, we would be heating 100% of the building to use 60% of it. It would be more than reasonable to expect that we could save more than $1.5 million in energy cost over the life of the new building.
When was the last time you renovated something? Did it cost what you estimated it to cost? Heck, I reshingled a ten square roof a couple years back and I ended up spending about a $1000 more than expected on materials. That’s how renovation goes so one could argue the $7 million estimate may be low even with the contingency they have built in. That’s why any renovation is a “guesstimate.”
And OK, Gettysburg? Really?! You’re comparing the Resource Center to Gettysburg?! That is the epitome of hyperbole! No one who says the Resource Center isn’t historically significant would say Gettysburg, or the White House, or Independence Hall are not historically significant. However, you will find a lot of people who believe those places are historically significant that will not see the historical significance of the Resource Center.
Like or Dislike:
7 
4
there is more than enough services in jackson who want to move to a new location or who want to move for more room to fully use all of the 38 building. if the commissioners weren’t so arrogant and listen to the voices of the public that gave opiions this would be a different story. I dont belive that i even metioned a the renovation being high, i belive i said the 3 phases would cost more than the estimate of the renovation and the three phases are estimates because it hasnt been built yet. and whats the matter with me comparring the resource center and local landmark to gettysburg and federal landmark. all you can do is say opions are hyperbole. if you cant handle opions along with facts on here maybe you shouldnt be on here
Like or Dislike:
2 
9
had to make sure before i opened my mouth but yes have renovated. did a living room and it actually cost less than what we had planned. in fact we had enough to do 1 1/2 other rooms
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
Facts not “opions” (or “opinions”?): utilizing all of the space in the 38 building has nothing to do with not having enough space needs to fill it, and has everything to do with not being able to use all of the space. You cannot change the size of the hallways and the auditorium cannot be used without spending inordinate amounts of money knocking out the balcony and floors and building the structure inside the auditorium to make it useable, not to mention installing HVAC in the renovated space. Renovating the auditorium is not in the plan because it will cost too much, so it is wasted space, period. So, the taxpayers will be heating a space that is not being used.
Fact: building costs for a new buliding are much easier to estimate because you’re starting with a blank slate, unlike renovation that requires invasive procedures to run the electrical and communication cables needed for office space and ductwork to install a more efficient HVAC system…you never know what you’re gonna find when you start tearing into something (like all of the dry rotted roof boards I found when I tore the old shingles off my roof). I don’t know if your renovation project included sheetrock or not, but if you just repainted and recarpeted, or even if you did sheetrock, that is not a fair comparison to renovating the Resource Center because it’s a smaller project with less chance of running into snafus and you weren’t changing the use of the room, likely weren’t running electrical or cable, and certainly weren’t messing with your HVAC system.
Fact: comparing an old school to a place where 51,000 people died is disrespectful to the battlefield and IS hyperbole. Hyperbole (noun): an obvious and intentional exaggeration. Used in a sentence: The debate was carried on with increasing rhetorical hyperbole.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
you know you asked if i have ever renovated and i answsered you. dont like it shouldnt have asked. and how is reshingling your roof any different than my livingroom? did you run new cable or put up sheetrock on your roof? also you said i was right with the cost of the new building after you said that it would only cost 2.5 million. not saying you were lying but you also did not mention the rest of the phases either and what it would total. really seems to me that your getting alot of what your saying off of the county minutes and articles in the papers. try thinking for yourself. and no exageration, comparison. would you have been happier if i would have said demolish mount vernon to build a new mall. i really dont see how demolishing a building that was built by people to feed their families during the worst economical disaster of our country’s history is anymore disrespectful than using gettysburg as an example. the resource center was built for more reasons than just for the need of a school.
and as far as parking goes. there already is a parking lot on the north end and there is room on the south end by the ’62 building to put a parking lot in, plus the parking on the streets. if parking on the street is good enough for the court house why cant a few people park on the street. it is also good enough for the human services building right now. no one has made an issue with the human services parking. all any one has said is the building is to small.
Like or Dislike:
1 
7
thank you for the vocab. lesson. did you learn that at the resource center?
Like or Dislike:
0 
8
So you repainted and maybe recarpeted, and you can’t see how that is different than ripping off shingles and not knowing what you’re find underneath those shingles? Sorry, I don’t consider repainting to be major renovation like what would need to happen in the 38 building.
Where do you get your info lemonhead? The letters to the editors? You sure like to use their hyperbolic talking points like “their building a monument to themselves.” Trust me, I know what the commissioners decide and the reasons for their decision long before it hits the paper.
The courthouse EEs and patrons do park on the street, thanks for bringing that up because that will change with a new building because the parking lot will be used for courthouse parking as well. What a great deal to be able to keep the EEs and patrons of both the resource center and courthouse safer by having them park in a parking lot rather than on a street with traffic. And no, there currently isn’t enough parking available around the resource center to keep everyone off the street. I guess I put public safety high on my priority list, you?
Last but not least, $8.5 million to build new in stages would still be the same, cheaper when you factor in efficiencies, than bonding to renovate. Lets say we use $2.5 million from reserves and bond $4.5 million to get the $7 million needed to renovate. I’ll use a low and optimistic interest rate of 2.5% APR over 20 years (typical bonding length). We would pay a little over $8.2 million for the renovation project, and still have an old, less efficient building. Renovation doesn’t make fiscal sense.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
and just for the record i didn’t bring up parking i answered someone elses post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
The ’38 building will be torn down.
The elected officials are doing what they were elected for – what is in the best interests of the electorate. The building, even after renovation, would not be capable of full use due to the auditorium. It is inefficient and heating is a major concern. With the condition of the building, it simply is not worth the trouble of getting it up to code and handicap accessible. I say if the Preservation Society wants it, they can buy it and pay the heating bill. Otherwise, the taxpayer’s will foot the bill.
There is nothing “historic” about the building. It was a good building and had its purpose in its day, but just because people carry sentimental feelings for their old highschool does not make it ‘historic’ in the sense that it needs to be saved and kept up over the centuries. For that matter, it is not even 100 years old.
I wager an injunction will not be granted. They may get a temporary one in order to get a full hearing on the facts, but that will be about it. The Minnesota Environmental Rights Act is meant to encompass ‘Natural Resources.’ Land, Air, Water, etc… not a 72 year old worn down building that the cost of keeping it ‘long term’ is not worth the trouble. People need to stop being so short sighted on this matter.
People need to realize the vote was not “tear down” or “not to tear down.” Any one who thought that walking into the polls was misinformed. The langauge of the vote was plain. There was no “hiding the football.”
The fact is the elected officials are doing what they were elected to do, under the power they have been given. My money says a Court will find an injunction is not appropriate, and the ’38 building will be torn down and much more efficient building will built in its place.
To the “chest-thompers”, of course people can have their vote on the officials come November. That’s the beauty of America! The problem is most people beating their chest don’t have a clue what it takes to seat on board, look at everything and make a decision based on whats best for the electorate. Even more frightening is the fact they think it’s a ‘I am here and gonna do what I want,” not realizing what they can do is limited by law.
I commend the Board, and hope those running for re-election get relected. I fear anyone who is running against them largely due to the fiasco hasn’t got a clue what they are getting into.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
i never said anything about recarpeting or just painting a room. your the one who compared reshingling a ten square part of a roof. now your trying to put words in my mouth. how do you get your info so soon? what makes you so special? why cant they renovate in phases the same way? why does it have to be bonding to renovate? why cant the 2.5 million in savings be used to start? who says i had to read the letters to the editor to have my opion that i see their new building as a monument to themselves? just cause their names or faces wouldn’t be on it does not mean that they would not be associated with it. people that would see the new building would think of these commissioners the same way as they will be remembered for threatened demolishin. you like giving definitions of words you use so i’ll try it.
arrogance: offensively exaggerating one’s own importance. sounds like it kinda fits the commissioners.
how do you plan on fitting enough parking in the same area once the three phases are done? you mentioned public safety with parking. what do you think is gonna happen with the human services when they move to the ’62 building with possible construction going on. have all those people going to human services around construction and destruction. doesn’t sound real safe to me. and really how do you even know there isnt enough parking there or have the potential for. are you special enough to see in to the future and predict future events. need more? tear down the ’62. look, more room.
the old armory had alot of people using the gym there before they tore it down. sounds like the gym and auditorium could be a good place for local kids to go for a rec center. it just sounds like your fishing and giving half truths to try and sell your point of view.
you want me to change my point of view talk the commissioners into getting three diffrent renovation quotes from ACTUAL companies that renovate instead of the one who in my opion (remember this is an opion page not discussion as so colorfully put some certain commissioners at the the last public meeting) wants all the expensive materials in the building to i dont know possibly sell on the market for more profit. happened with other old buildings in jackskon (old united prarie bank for example) dont think the terrazzo in good condition would get a good price?
i could also see the the new building only getting partially done, kinda like the dam in town due to unforeseen circumstances. considering the commissioners are planning on using money that they only can actualy hope to get since they really dont have all of the windmill revenue. kinda like spending money from winning the powerball when you havent bought the ticket yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Here’s my “opion,” we could go round and round. Most contractors will tell you that renovation will usually cost more than the original estimate. Find a contractor who says different and I’ll show you a poor contractor. I also find it interesting that a high ranking member of the preservation alliance choose to build a new house instead of remodeling her old one. I guess it’s different when your spending other people’s money…
There will be about 70 EEs working in the county services building. There isn’t enough parking, especially when people suggest marketing the 38 to other entities. There will be more parking space if we have a building with a smaller footprint and construction will be a tempory situation, not long term, and the 62 will come down when the all construction is complete. We would need to tear down one of the buildings to have enough parking if we remodeled, but why would you tear down the better building with more easily utilized space? We could use the auditorium for a rec center, but do you really want the county to assume that liability? Are you going to pay someone to keep the building open and make sure vandlism, or worse, the perusing or destruction of sensitive documents doesn’t happen? And yes, the demolition of the building is planned to be a deconstruction meaning they would harvest materials that could be recycled and/or sold to keep the cost of the demolition down. How is that not the fiscally responsible thing to do? You do know the project will be bid so sale of materials will be factored into the bid, right? You say we should renovate in stages. Why would you want to keep two inefficient buildings up longer? Or do you think the renovation can happen while the EEs are in the space being renovated? Should we keep spending 6 figures a year on utilities until the renovation is done? And you do realize that the cost of renovation will go up over the years, just like construction costs, right? So, comparing the price one project to be completed in stages to price of the other completed all at once without factoring bonding isn’t correct. Then you turn around and say that we can remodel in stages to avoid bonding and fail to account for inflation. Would you consider comparing apples and oranges to be a “half truth?” And you also realize that the same reasoning you use to say a new building will only get partially completed would apply to renovating in stages as well, right? Or, will you have another half truth moment?
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
so your going to compare someones private money and what they do with it to public money. i would rather pay someone to keep up a buildng that gives my kids a place to go to instead of running the street. you talk about liability with giving a place for kids to go. what about the liability your proposing to the general public with not having a place for them to go? you mentioned the hallways are to big yet the commissioners keep talking about making it handicap accessible. yeah so lets build smaller hallways so people run into each other. that makes alot of sensce. you mention my half truths. you said you get your information well before its in the papers. i dont. i get mine from the commissioner meetings and yes a shocker the papers. so if i have only half truths were do you think they come from. your right too, selling the good materials is a smart thing to do, but then why hide from the public. were they afraid of the responce they would get? just like the question that was asked on the ballot. so many differnet questions that could have been asked instead of the “bonding” or even added to the ballot. but weren’t. they keeping saying, a long with what your saying, that the vote was just for bonding but yet they held informational meetings for a new building and sent out informational fliers. just doesnt make a whole lot of sensce if it was just a bonding vote.
no really “fiscally responsible” to spend $12,500 on the fliers if the vote had nothing to do with the building staying up or coming down. sounded like a waste of money on their part. but yet they still talk about wasting money on what they like to call “unusuable space”. i have just given an option for the gym and auditorium, but i guess it didnt fit in with thier plans. guess its alright for them to waste tax payer money on pointless stuff.
the memories for some are not the only reasons why people are upset and dont want it to go. for exampe i gave suggestions to you, but just like the commissioners do at the meetings they were all ignored.
the commissioners say it wont raise taxes to build new. really?! they spend all the money they have on the new building. so when the next big project comes up, such as the county shop, all the money is gone that they had saved, now they have to raise taxes for the county shop project. yes the resource center didn’t raise taxes but yet it was an after effect of it. yes the possibility is there for that to happen with a renovation, but the new building has already had commissioners admit that it would be to small. so now we are right back to where we are now. no wait worse off, not only does human services have a building to small AGAIN, now the county has no funds saved up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
3