With only four weeks remaining until the Nov. 4 election, issues regarding Gasconade County’s Proposition A have become murky, muddled, and confused.

COURTHOUSE ANALYSIS Com -mittee member Gerald Ebker (right) explains the present courthouse site to those attending a town hall meeting in Aug.l

A petition-driven initiative regarding the proposal to relocate the county seat of government from Hermann to Owensville has become, in the words of one opponent of the measure, convoluted.

Town Hall meeting were held this past week in three communities on the southern end of the county — Bland, Rosebud, and Canaan.

Opinions and comments made at least one of the meetings we covered indicate some county residents still do not understand some of the key issues regarding the proposal. Those include the desperate need for additional government space — physical space for storage of records and work space for personnel —along with improved handicap accessibility to all aspects of government business. Safety of county employees working at, and patrons visiting, the current courthouse was also a priority for consideration.

We learned earlier this year that the only means of escape from the second-floor courtroom — should a fire break out in the rotunda or dome above it — was down a rope ladder dropped out of the window.

A survey conducted by an expert in access issues for the disabled noted the entire second floor was inaccessible to anyone with physical impairments requiring a wheelchair. That included attending court sessions, visiting staff on the floor, or tour groups. 

What is evident, however, is there is a multitude of theories — some good, some really bad — about how to achieve these goals in a cost-effective manner. A five-member committee appointed by the Gasconade County Commission was empaneled to review the county’s needs and develop proposals for solving these spacial, accessibility, and safety issues.

One of its members, and a commissioner involved in developing proposals for additional space, agreed that any proposals to create more workspace in the basement or upper level of the courthouse — beneath the dome  as suggested by one county resident — was impractical and bordered on the absurd. Both stated during the meeting in Bland that insurance agents had cautioned county officials about even taking members of the public up into the upper level of the courthouse.

In the past two weeks, it has been announced that the Gasconade County Courthouse Society (GCCS) in Hermann is working on an entirely new proposal for upgrading the present courthouse site.

At Bland City Hall, a Town Hall meeting on Sept. 27 drew only 12 participants including one media representative and the presenter, Gerald Ebker, a Drake area resident and member of the original analysis committee.

Ebker explained that a DNR official told him the plan, as presented in Option No. 1, “changed the appearance of the courthouse too dramatically” which “was unacceptable.” Ebker suggested the plan could be “toned down” or, perhaps, the Gasconade County Courthouse Society could be looking at an entirely different design.

A new design, he said, was preferable. Ebker said he had heard the GCCS has enlisted the services of an architect in an effort to  develop an alterative to the so-called “wedding cake” design proposed originally as Option No. 1 (see related story). He said the GCCS was working with historic preservation personnel in an effort develop a design favorable to the DNR. Along with a new design would come a revised cost estimate.

“I’ve heard it will be less,” said Ebker who noted they would have to wait until that announcement is made before saying any more on the proposal.

Ebker noted the “cake design” and the proposal for an entirely new government center were originally created by the same architect. Option No. 1 carried an estimate price tag of $14 million. Option No. 2, a new government center at an unspecified locateion was estimated at $10 million and did not include land acquisition. The plan to convert the OES 3-5 Center into a government center was created by a separate firm with an estimated price tag of $6 million to renovate existing space and add onto the building.

Each of the proposals included estimates for a 10 to 15-percent contingency fund  to cover cost-overruns and unforeseen problems in construction.

Owensville real estate agent John Adams noted at Bland that there had been discussion on two options for annex buildings adjacent to the courthouse. Those included a two-level structure and a five-level building which would have connected with the existing courthouse through a walkway to the second-floor courtroom and offices. Costs estimates for those options were similar to the $14 million price tag on the three-sided addition.

Ebker said options for an annex were projected to cost a million dollars more than the “cake” design.

None of the costs associated with Proposition A have included moving costs. Nor did the proposal include cost estimates should alternate off-site office space be required if a major renovation of the existing courthouse was undertaken.

“I’m here to say that $14 million project is off,” said Ebker at the meeting in Bland.

“I’m still unaware that DNR runs the county,” countered Jerry Lairmore, commissioner of the Southern District. “I’m unaware that DNR, or anyone else, runs the county other than the three commissioners.”

Lairmore said voters will still need to consider all three options when voting on Proposition A. “I’ve never heard of the Society having another plan,” added Lairmore noting no one from that group had contacted him directly.

Published accounts two days later, however, confirmed the GCCS has indeed enlisted the services of a St. Louis area architect firm, White and Borgognoni, of Overland, Mo., which specialized in historic preservation work.

Lairmore said citizens should be aware that any additional project ideas should be presented with comparable square foot figures. What is needed, he said, was a plan to create work, storage, and handicap government space totalling the 35,240 square feet originally identified by the analysis committee. The current courthouse has only 11,009 square feet of work actual workspace.

“Everyone lives south of the courthouse right now,” said Lairmore. “It’s more accessible to everyone. It’s more centralized. Moving it (the government center) is a viable option.”

Legally, Lairmore noted, the county can currently only seek bond indebtedness of up to $9 million with voter approval.

“As of right now, tonight, the county has only one proposal that is viable,” said Lairmore touting the OES 3-5 Center option at an estimated $6 million. The building and surrounding land has been pledged as a donation from Owensville businessmen Jim Decker and Don Lenauer.

“Five weeks to the election and one of the options is off the table,” said Ebker later.

“If we have to pay it back, option one is still on the table,” said Lairmore regarding grant funds used for masonry repairs to the stairway.

“If Proposition A passes DNR can take it over and make it beautiful.”

Perhaps he was being too cynical but he’s been willing to share his opinions publicly throughout the process.

Lairmore and Ron Jost, presiding commissioner, have pressed the issue for additional government space. They have championed the cause to find a safer facility for county workers and the public. Lairmore was critical of the GCCS efforts at derailing the addition option in the final weeks leading up to the election. “Those (four) people are going to make the decisions and decide what kind of building we should have?” asked Lairmore.

Ebker noted the architect is working for GCCS now and not the commission.

“They loved the plan initially,” added Lairmore.

County registered voters on Nov. 4 will be asked to vote, either yes or no, on the question: Shall the County Seat of Gasconade County be removed from Hermann, Missouri, to the City of Owensville.”

A two-thirds majority is required for approval.