NEW LONDON -- The same week bids were opened in the project to demolish the former fish hatchery in New London, the state Department of Natural Resources is considering another offer to salvage the building.
Daryl Larson of Paynesville has offered to fix the roof, replace bricks and paint the building. The DNR will consider his request in the next couple days, said Mark Friday, DNR building manager for southern Minnesota.
Bids to demolish the top portion of the building were opened Tuesday and ranged from $48,798 to $127,231. The DNR has not checked yet on the status of the performance bonds the DNR required of the contractors, and no bid was awarded, Friday said.
Larson said the state's money would be spent better if the building was left up until the DNR knows whether it needs to be torn down.
"I'd like to see the state spend their money well," he said.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lower part of the building acts as part of the dam on the Mill Pond. The DNR plans to repair or replace the dam, but doesn't know yet how that would affect the fish hatchery. It probably won't know for two to five years.
The city of New London has been looking for a solution for the building for about 20 years. The council threatened condemnation at one point because the building wasn't being maintained to its standards.
In 2003, the wooden portion of the building was demolished and the brick portion was gutted.
The council held a public hearing on the possibly of the building's demolition late last year, but no one came to the meeting. The DNR proceeded with demolition plans and said the top portion of the building would be torn down in October.
The demolition project was delayed and bids didn't go out until earlier this month. In September, a Spicer woman, Renee Jenniges, came forward with a proposal to save the building.
Jenniges originally wanted to purchase the building, fix it up and possibly move her business there. She has a massage therapy studio and spa in New London.
The DNR decided it couldn't sell the building because of its relationship to the dam. Jenniges offered to do some work to the building even though she couldn't own it. The DNR said it would not let her do more extensive work, such as fixing the roof because of safety concerns, but agreed to smaller projects, such as painting, if the building were left up.
Jenniges could not be reached for comment by Tuesday evening on Larson's proposal.
ADVERTISEMENT
The New London City Council was most concerned with the more substantial repairs, such as the roof and bricks that were falling off the building, and continued to support its demolition.
Larson said he was interested in the bidding on the project until he saw the requirements. The project requires certain measures, such as filling the bottom portion of the building before demolition, because it acts as part of the dam, he said.
He has offered to purchase materials and provide free labor to fix up the exterior of the building. That way, the state wouldn't have to spend money unnecessarily if it turns out the building doesn't need to be demolished for the dam, he said. If it does, he said demolishing all of it would be cheaper than taking down the top portion now and the bottom portion later.
He would not say how much he thinks the project will cost him.
Saving the state and taxpayers money is Larson's main motivation. Larson is not a contractor by trade but has worked on construction and demolition projects.
He said if the DNR decides it can leave the building up, he's interested in buying it.
Friday said whether the DNR wants to tear down a building that it may not need to demolish will factor into its decision. The department has a "minimal amount" of money for building repair and wants to spend it well, he said.
New London Mayor John Mack could not be reached for comment.
