MANKATO — The City Council approved the con­struction of a $1.48 mil­lion airport building Monday on a 5 to 2 vote accepting a state grant amid concern that no ten­ant has been secured.



The 12,000-square-foot building, described as a “ basic shell with no amenities” by a city memo, was conceived of as a way to generate rev­enue for the airport. An aviation business, such as repair or sales, would move there and pay rent to the city.



Councilman Mark Frost voted against the project because he believes tax money is being spent where “real” money — private investment — wouldn’t be.



“It’s real money versus tax dollars,” he said before the meeting. “ What they’re saying is ‘Build it and they will come.’” The project is support­ed by a $650,000 state grant. The lower cost allows the city to charge less rent, making it more attractive to prospective businesses, City Manager Pat Hentges said. The rest of the funding comes from the city’s half-percent sales tax.



There was also some last-minute confusion and debate surrounding the pro­ject’s top two bidders, Gosewisch Construction and WEB Construction.



Gosewisch was awarded the project with a bid about $170,000 lower than WEB’s. WEB Construction co­owner Jerry Williams told the council he was con­cerned the project would be improperly bid.



At issue is so- called “ value engineering,” in which the city and a con­tractor work together to reduce a project’s cost — often after it has been awarded or with a series of bidders.



Williams was concerned that the low bidder, Gosewisch, had a value engineering deal with the city before the bid accept­ance, an opportunity that was not extended to the other bidders. Such a deal — before the bid was accepted and with a single bidder — would be unethi­cal, Williams said.



He said the proper thing to do with a low bidder that cannot do the project would be to award it to the sec­ond- highest bidder — not to work out a special arrangement with the low­est bidder.



He was informed that such a deal may be happen­ing by a reporter from The Free Press on Friday.



Hentges had said Friday that Gosewisch, the low bid­der, wanted to cut $70,000 from the project on items the city didn’t really need, and leave the bid total the same. Gosewisch had dis­cussed withdrawing its bid in May, and that $70,000 reduction in costs would be a way for Gosewisch to do the project, and for the city to get the lower bid.



Hentges said Monday that the city couldn’t honor such a request. The bid, in other words, is the bid, with no pre- conditions about value engineering.



It wasn’t clear if the own­ers of Gosewisch believed they had such a deal before the bid was accepted Monday, but the company did withdraw its bid shortly after 5 p.m., an hour before the council meeting was to start.



A few minutes after that, though, Gosewisch called the city to say it would indeed honor its low bid, without any value engineer­ing.



And that was where it stood after the council vote — that the low bidder would keep his low bid, and not make value engineering a requirement of the project.