A new proposal to renovate the historic Gasconade County Courthouse in Hermann is expected to be released publicly prior to the Nov. 4 ballot issue regarding Proposition A  — a petition initiative asking voters to decided if the county government seat should be moved to Owensville.

“The election is not about the building,” said Glenn Warnebold, treasurer of the Gasconade County Courthouse Society. “The issue is very clear. The issue is whether or not to move the county seat. We’ve been preaching that. So, this whole process has been kind of upside down. A lot of people feel that way.”

Warnebold said there is a feeling that promoters of the county’s Proposition A confused the issue by making an issue about the cost analysis between the three options presented earlier this year — for example: a question answered at a Town Hall meeting in Owensville as “what part of 14, 10, and 6 (million) don’t you understand?”

He admits there was early support by members of the Gasconade County Courthouse Society for the design now called “the wedding cake” — a three-sided, multi-level addition surrounding the existing courthouse. And, he noted, the $14 million estimated price tag was unrealistic.

That design would have effectively obliterated the bluff surrounding the three sides of the structure, it’s concrete and stone stairway and retaining wall facing the street.

A portion of the grant funds obtain from the Department of Natural Resources last fall was used to repair those steps — $24,500 to be exact. The remainder of the $47,500 DNR grant for historic preservation efforts specifically targeting courthouses was used for roofing ($7,500) and electrical upgrades in the basement ($15,500), according to county documents supplied by the commission last October.

“Now that it’s on  the ballot, our goal is to find the most cost efficient way to facilitate the needs of the county,” said Warnebold.
An entirely new proposal is being developed.

“We will have information out in the press certainly before the election,” said Warnebold. “If we had not gone down this winding, convoluted road, we certainly would be (closer to having a new plan).”

Asked if their new plan involved an adjoining annex or a separate building, Warnebold commented, “We do own those lots and we didn’t buy them to resell them. We will get information in the newspaper before the election.”

Warnebold said the GCCS was meeting tonight (Wednesday) to discuss the new proposal for the existing courthouse site.

“As soon as the Society decides to release it, we’ll share it with the public. It will be done before the election. Rest assured, there will be something in the newspapers before the people go to the polls (Nov. 4),” said Warnebold.

Warnebold said he was researching an unrelated issue when he discovered documents pertaining to the DNR grant for courthouse repairs.

Covenants related to restrictions and historic preservation, he learned, limited what could be done to the courthouse in the initial Option No. 1 as presented earlier this year.

“I’m quite distressed that this has been a battle between the North and South with a lot of misstatements and misinformation.”

Sue Holst, with the DNR’s information office, commented on behalf of Mark A. Miles, director of the State Historic Preservation Office which handles the courthouse grant program. Miles was out of the office making a presentation on Tuesday.

“Yes he did say the first plan was unacceptable,” said Holst.

But, she added, that didn’t mean physical changes to the courthouse were impossible.

“That would not eliminate the possibility of that change but it is something we would need to be involved in that discussion,” said Holst.

“Our opinion is that the covenant says we have to be involved in that discussion before any changes are made.”

Holst said the courthouse building itself is included in the Hermann Historic District and is, therefore, included individually on The National Register of Historic Places list maintained by the U.S. Department of Interior’s National Park Service. The DNR, she said, coordinates this list on the statewide level.

Holst confirmed there have be, to date, no letters or written orders from the DNR halting any proposals for courthouse renovations.

“Not that I’m aware of that’s something I probably would have heard about.”

Later, Holst called back and provided additional comments after talking more with Miles.

“The original plan that he saw did not meet the standards of the Secretary of State regarding whether or not it would threaten or destroy the historic integrity of the building,” said Holst, again speaking for Miles. “But, he said he was confident there was a way they could develop a plan to meet their needs and still retain the historic integrity of the building.

“He would be very willing to work with the county to develop something that will meet the needs (of the county) and standards (of the Secretary of State).”

She stressed the agency was maintaining a neutral stance on Proposition A.

“The DNR does not, we are not taking a position on whether it remains a courthouse and county government center or whether or not the county seat is moved to Owensville,” said Holst. “Our only concern is making sure the historical integrity of  the building is maintained.”

Ron Jost, presiding commissioners counters comments made by Courthouse Analysis Committee member Steve Mueller which were published in the Hermann Advertiser Courier last week. The story noted Mueller and his fellow committee members were unaware of any grant agreement between the DNR and the county commission.

“(Steve) Mueller was at the same meeting, an evening meeting at the courthouse, with Doyle Childers and the Gasconade County Historical Society,” said Jost referring to a 2007 session when discussions on extending the grant application were held with the DNR official. “For him to say that he was unaware, that’s a bunch of bull.

“What’s really going on is they don’t want to do anything (to the courthouse) and neither do I,” said Jost. “It’s not an issue with me what they say. I’m not for it (Option No. 1). It’s immaterial. It just needs to be retired as an old building just the way it is. They’ll probably bring something out about a week before the election, I’d say. It’s not the county’s plan. It’s just a small group of peoples’ plans.”

The county needs more space, period, he said. Jost said he’s seen it many times where lawyers are conferring with clients only feet away from open office doors as county business is being conducted. “We’re working back in the early 1900s,” Jost said. “We need to come up. As far as a justice center, there’s not enough room for a lawyer to even talk with his client in private and that’s not good.”