ILNews

Lawmakers advance bill to aid courthouse restoration, but money is missing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nearly every county seat in Indiana could benefit from a bill promoting historic courthouse renovation and maintenance projects.

Only problem is, when lawmakers passed the legislation through the Senate they stripped out the money for it.

Senate Bill 474 proposed to create a program through which counties with courthouses on the National Historic Register – that’s all but eight of Indiana’s 92 – could receive low-interest loans for preservation or restoration. The bill passed the Senate without a vote against it after the $2 million to fund the loans was axed in a Senate committee.
 

courthouse-monroe-15col.jpg The Monroe County Courthouse, above, and the Parke County Courthouse, below, are among 84 in Indiana listed on the National Register of Historic Places. (File Photos)

“The rotating funds portion has been taken out,” said a disappointed Franklin Circuit Judge J. Steven Cox, who hopes lawmakers in the House Ways and Means Committee hear the bill and put the money back in.

Cox was a member of the Courthouse Preservation Advisory Commission appointed in 2008 by Gov. Mitch Daniels to advise county officials on preserving the state’s historic courthouses. The panel led by then-Chief Justice Randall Shepard undertook extensive surveys of county officials, judges and those entrusted with the care of the buildings.


courthouse-parke-1col.jpg

It also came up with a list of proposals for lawmakers, including the revolving loan fund.

“One of the things we found in the survey was maybe 25 percent or so had not had major renovations in quite some time,” said Jim Glass, who retired in December as director of the Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology at the Department of Natural Resources.

“That would suggest some counties have major work to be done,” said Glass, who was an ex-officio member of the courthouse preservation commission.

The proposal introduced by Sen. Jim Merritt, R-Indianapolis, would have appropriated $2 million from the general fund to establish low-interest matching loans that counties could borrow for restoration projects and repay with county economic development income tax receipts or revenue from county adjusted gross income tax.

While the loan program is currently out of the bill, Glass said the bill does identify courthouse preservation or restoration as economic development projects that qualify for funding through economic development tax receipts.

“This is another tool in the toolkit,” said Rep. Todd Huston, R-Fishers, House sponsor for the bill.

Wells County Commissioner Kevin Woodward wishes the revolving loan tool had remained in the bill, and he hopes the proposal might resurface. Woodward was a member of the courthouse panel and knows firsthand the problems smaller counties face with upkeep of structures built in an era when the majesty of public buildings was a matter of competition across county lines.

“To preserve those structures, of course we all know it takes a lot of money, and the fact that counties are financially strapped anyway, anything that could be put into place at least gives us a little bit of opportunity,” Woodward said. “It’s the counties that are a little smaller that struggle with their funding source.”

Cox said that in some counties, lack of funds for courthouse work was a persistent problem. Plus, there is often a lack of political will locally to commit money through a bond issue, for instance, and so there aren’t other revenues available.

“The commission identified one of the major problems was the counties only attend to courthouse preservation, restoration or maintenance when it got to the point it couldn’t be ignored anymore,” he said. The commission in a 2011 report recommended lawmakers enact the revolving loan program Merritt proposed so that counties could have a revenue option that didn’t require issuing bonds.

“In most counties, how it works is the roof starts leaking, and there’s knowledge locally that the roof is getting bad,” Cox said. Without money, “you try to defer it or do something that will put it off … then you get to the point where the whole thing has to be done.”

Glass said some counties have fared better than others when it comes to finding ways to fund courthouse upkeep and restoration. Some near riverboat casinos have been able to tap into the taxes collecting from gaming, for instance.

But Cox hopes lawmakers take some note of the importance of the structures that anchor so many county seats around the state, and whose postponed needs will only cost more in the future.

“When those courthouses were built in the mid-19th century and in the late 19th century, counties really competed and took great pride in these structures,” he said. “Those people in various counties when they were constructing these buildings were on board with what you might call the opulence of it.”

The proposal working its way through the Legislature now would also try to build interest in courthouse preservation by creating a traveling exhibit describing the role of courthouses in the history, architecture and art of the counties and the state. That proposal remains, but the $50,000 originally allocated for the exhibit has likewise been stricken from the most recent version of the bill.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • fix this NOW!!
    Considering how ugly all courthouses built after the war look, and how glorious the old ones are, this is really a shame. Shame on these scrurrilous vote-mongers. When they have a chance to do something to preserve our noble Hoosier heritage they muck it up. I will be following up on this with my representative and totally castigating him if he does not help get this fixed. Despicable. Recently I was in Marshall county walking down these august marble steps and admiring the mosaic tile and holding the brass rail and the clients were truly impressed. Take them to some modern cublicle style mostrosity they usually cant tell where the court begins and the shabby bureaucratic container space ends.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT