With construction for an elevator security camera delayed by more than 200 days, the Faribault County Board of Commissioners debated Tuesday whether or not to play “hardball” in the name of safety at the courthouse.

Extensive security upgrades both in and beyond the Faribault County Courthouse began in 2016, with everything from the local Ag Center, attorney’s office and annex building getting either new secure entrances or additional security cameras.

But one particular camera project, centered on obtaining security footage within the courthouse’s elevator, has been at a standstill for more than six months because of concerns expressed by the project contractor, American Integrated Security Group (AISG).

“During the construction process,” explained Dawn Fellows, the county’s Central Services director, “although this process was (specified) by the engineers, the contractor was not comfortable with nor did they feel it was their right to wire the elevator shaft to include the appropriate wiring for the camera installation.”

Claiming that any work inside the elevator would be illegal for them to accomplish according to elevator laws and regulations, AISG halted completion of the security project, Fellows said.

Now, months later, as Fellows informed the commissioners Tuesday, the contractor is seeking to finish the job and install the long-awaited camera through a $7,934 payment to MEI, the county’s elevator service provider.

The only catch?

The county would also assume half of that cost.

“This sharing is presented as a change order cost of $3,967 to Faribault County,” Fellows said. “We’re in the final hours of this camera and security project, and this would get the elevator camera fully wired.”

None of the commissioners disagreed that project completion was long overdue. Some, in fact, admitted they were not aware that so much time had passed since the elevator camera was supposed to have been installed.

But the decision to approve the change order, later passed with unanimous support, did not arrive without an unplanned conference call to Bob Mickelson, of Mankato’s I&S Group, the architect behind the project, and an hour of wide-ranging discussion.

“I smell a rat with this deal here,” commissioner Greg Young said upon hearing of the split-cost proposal. “We ought to drag this engineer in here and find out why this happened if it was fully spec’d.”

Mickelson later explained that a lack of clarity with a single word in AISG’s contract may have justified the contractor’s attempt to avoid fronting the cost for the elevator hardwiring.

But even if AISG was misled or legally prohibited from certain work, some, including county engineer Mark Daly, felt that the contractor could still be held responsible for not fulfilling construction.

“When they try to resist like this, it’s frustrating,” Daly said, telling the County Board he has encountered similar situations with roadwork contracts. “Everyone knows they screwed up.”

Mickelson admitted in his conference call with the commissioners that he, too, felt strongly about both the county and I&S Group’s case against AISG.

But, he added, pursuing legal action to avoid a proposed $3,967 payment, as county attorney Troy Timmerman later echoed, might also be more trouble than it is worth.

“The closest and easiest way is to split that,” he said. “It’s a game of back and forth.”

And splitting the cost is exactly what the commissioners ultimately agreed to do.

Young and fellow commissioner Tom Loveall maintained concerns about the county being asked to pay for a mistake it had no hand in, but both also agreed that exploring litigation would be a fight for “principle” at the sacrifice of potentially costing more money.

Mickelson, suggesting that I&S Group could split the $3,967 cost with the county, may have helped the commissioners vote in favor of the change order to wrap up discussions.

But an investment in safety in finishing a long-anticipated security upgrade is what truly drove the board to act, according to commissioner Tom Warmka.

“I think (the cost) is too much,” he said. “But I’m also saying, ‘How long do you want to run without security?’ That’s a liability there.”

The other commissioners, noting the importance of having security footage inside an elevator often used by visitors from the Faribault County Law Enforcement Center, agreed by casting votes to approve the 50-50 split with AISG for the camera work.

At Tuesday’s meeting, the County Board also:

Approved Daly’s request to seek quotes for the mining and washing of sand at Brush Creek’s pit.

Daly estimated costs of the mining and washing to total as much as $100,000 even though only $15,000 was budgeted for it this year. But under-budget items in maintenance, construction and equipment purchases, he said, ensure the operation would be financially feasible.

The county has not bid for such work, Daly added, since 2010.

Heard an update from Loria Rebuffoni, of the county’s Planning and Zoning department, on research regarding wind energy ordinances and state regulations for turbine projects.

Rebuffoni relayed noise-level standards from the state level and said she has also inquired of professors from several local universities, including the University of Minnesota, to get additional information on the effects of wind energy, noise and other factors pertaining to turbines on local communities.