ILNews

Debate over historic Brown County courthouse continues

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At one of the state’s most-visited tourist crossroads stands a courthouse at a crossroads of its own.

Nestled in the rugged, rolling hills of southern Indiana, the rustic Brown County courthouse in Nashville feels more at home in the 19th century than the 21st, and plenty of folks say that suits them fine. But officials worry.

They say the building doesn’t comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. There is no security to speak of, and space for jurors, lawyers and clients isn’t sufficient. And the clerk’s office doesn’t even have enough space for files.

brown-courthouse-rendering-2-15col.jpg An architect’s rendering of the Brown County courthouse in Nashville shows the original structure – roughly the front third – with a proposed $6.5 million expansion that residents overwhelmingly rejected last year. Community discussions now are weighing various alternatives. (Photo submitted)

“We’re not addressing those things,” Brown County Commissioner John Kennard said. “We have a horrendous lack of room. It’s an 1870s building. … We’ve got people that are working in an old vault.”

Last September, about 200 people signed a petition for the county to borrow nearly $6.5 million to expand the historic two-story brick structure and address a laundry list of needs. Taxpayers and registered voters revolted, gathering nearly eight times as many signatures in opposition, snuffing the project for at least a year.

“We got killed,” Kennard said. “A lot of issues in Brown County get emotionally charged.”

That was the case with the courthouse initiative. He believes many people felt shut out of a process that began with a courthouse energy audit and evolved into an out-of-town architect’s detailed proposal for a renovation and expansion to address needs identified by courthouse users.

Local leaders got the message after the remonstrance. Since September, groups have held numerous public community conversations to talk about those needs and possible solutions, leaving all options on the table. Kennard wishes those kinds of discussions had taken place earlier.

“It is a fascinating matrix of issues – tradition, location, obviously, and how to preserve the traditional and meet the modern-day needs,” said William C. Lloyd, a Bloomington attorney who lives in Brown County.

Lloyd serves as volunteer counsel for the Brown County Community Foundation which, with the local League of Women Voters, has sponsored numerous meetings inviting public participation to talk about and study various options for the courthouse and how to meet needs.

Foundation CEO Larry Pejeau took the helm shortly after the courthouse expansion was shot down by voters, but he’s lived in Nashville since the 1970s.

“It’s a pretty interesting county,” he said. “We have some old families here that had businesses in Nashville for some time and feel the quaintness of Nashville is important and say, ‘Leave it the way it is.’”

Architectural renderings of a two-story addition to the old courthouse struck some nerves, even though pains had been taken to maintain the historic structure and ensure new construction reflected its style.

“It was very polarized a year ago,” Pejeau said. “People are at least talking now.”

Pejeau said there are voices advocating for construction of a new courthouse near the sheriff’s department on State Road 46 east of State Road 135, away from the commercial center of Nashville, or retrofitting an inn that is for sale. Those options would allow for repurposing the existing courthouse, which is the center of a historic square that also includes a log jail and the Brown County Historical Society’s Pioneer Village.

Others would have none of that. They favor slight modifications to the current courthouse to comply with the ADA and bolstering security while finding needed space elsewhere. “Some people just say, ‘No, the courthouse has been good for 100 years, do what you need to do and keep it here in town,’” Pejeau explained.

Subgroups have formed to explore various options, and they’ve reported back with their findings from time to time. That’s given people an opportunity to more closely gain perspective about what the needs are and help determine the best way forward.

Brown Circuit Judge Judith Stewart is happy to be part of the discussions but, perhaps judiciously, she’s not taking sides. “I think it’s going to be up to the public, the commissioners and the council,” she said.

Various plans have pros and cons, Stewart said, “and I have no position on those. … I’m just trying to explain where I think some of the needs are.”

Stewart said the courthouse does need better security – not just for the public but also a secured entrance for people in custody whom deputies transport to and from jail. The jury room is too small, and facilities are such that sometimes she and jurors come into contact outside the courtroom.

“It’s tough for folks who don’t work in the environment every day to see,” she said.

Kennard has asked residents to see for themselves what the needs are, but few are willing. But it’s only a matter of time, he said, before the county’s hand may be forced. “All it would take is somebody to walk in there and file (an ADA) complaint, and you’re going to have to address it.

“We need to decide what we’re going to do, and where we’re going to do it,” he said, but he’s not optimistic about a consensus developing in spite of efforts to draw the community together. “We continue to stir the pot. I’d say it’s going to be a long time before there’s a decision.”

But Pejeau is optimistic. He expects meetings regarding the courthouse will continue to take place. “I think what people like,” he said, “is this is just a really good process.

“Nobody doubts there are ADA issues and security issues that need addressed,” he said. “People are very aware of that. … I think we’re slowly coming to some consensus as to what’s best for the community.”

Pejeau credits Kennard and other local leaders for engaging in the community discussions in a county with a unique set of circumstances. Being a bucolic tourist destination isn’t always easy.

“Brown County has a brand, and we have an infrastructure you can’t build. It’s a beautiful place to live, and that’s why people want to live here,” he said.

But that also presents some challenges. With just 15,000 residents, the population is among the state’s oldest and, at the same time, healthiest, Pejeau said. An influx of retirees attracted by the desirable environment has raised the cost of property and in some cases priced out younger families.

The vast Brown County State Park and state forest land also puts about half of all property in the county off the tax rolls, leaving fewer landowners to cover the bills for government services.

Pejeau noted there is no industry of any significant size in the county and no big-box stores, either of which normally would pay a greater share of taxes. At the same time, that’s part of the lure – “a blessing,” Pejeau said of the local mind-set.

And just as residents last year came together with a resounding “No” to a proposal they didn’t agree with, Pejeau said the response to that also says something about the county.

“For the most part, it’s been a very healthy conversation in the community, I think.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT