Council hears detailed case for new prosecutor’s office

Local News X A proposed new prosecutor’s office took up a large share of the Brown County Council’s April 2 work session, with county officials laying out why they believe the current building should not be renovated and why a new office near the law enforcement center is now the preferred option. The conversation began as part of a broader bond spending update. Commissioner Kevin Patrick reported that about $2.64 million remains from the 2024 bond after paying for a range of courthouse, community corrections and technology-related costs. From there, attention turned to two possible future uses for bond money – courthouse window replacement and a new prosecutor’s office. A courthouse window study came in at about $220,144.50, including a 15 percent contingency. The prosecutor’s office discussion was much larger, both in cost and in scope. Dan Cartwright, who is serving as the county’s owner’s representative, told the council he reviewed several possibilities for the prosecutor’s office before arriving at a recommendation. He said the county first looked at whether the office could stay where it is, whether it could be rebuilt on the existing site, and whether an addition to the courthouse made sense. In the end, he said those ideas fell away for practical reasons. The current office’s problems, as described during the meeting, go beyond age and appearance. Cartwright said there are concerns about asbestos in the building, especially in the utility room and the two bathrooms. Commissioner Patrick said that material is now encapsulated, meaning it is contained and not currently creating a hazardous environment, but it has not been fully removed. He also said a report from an outside consultant exists documenting the condition. There was also discussion about what might be under the current site if the building were torn down. One council member asked whether environmental cleanup would be needed in the soil under the existing office if a new building were built there. Cartwright said the county has reason to believe that could be possible, though he also said some of that cost might be reduced through encapsulation rather than full removal. Still, he said he spent little time on that option because of the larger issues with the site, especially parking, building condition and the possibility of environmental problems below the surface. Security was another issue raised repeatedly. Cartwright said the prosecutor’s office needs to be a secure location. The courthouse itself was also examined as a possible location, but Cartwright said there is not enough room on the north side to build what was originally envisioned as a 3,700-square-foot office unless the county went to two stories. He said that would create historic preservation issues and would not be very practical. He told the council that after conversations with the prosecutor, the final needed size may be smaller than earlier concepts, but he still did not think the courthouse site made sense. He said the team that reviewed the options included himself, Commissioner Patrick, the prosecutor, the judge and the sheriff, and that group landed on that same conclusion. From there, the discussion moved to what Cartwright called the best site, which is the northeast corner of the law enforcement center property. He said that location has enough room, remains outside the 100-year floodplain if carefully placed, offers better security and can work with the existing jail and sally port layout. “This site, honestly, folks, this site makes sense,” he said. “If you’re gonna build a new building for the prosecutor’s office, this is the site that it needs to be built on.” Cartwright estimated the cost at roughly $1.288 million before contingency, or about $1.3 million to $1.5 million with a 15 percent cushion built in. He said that number is conceptual, not a guaranteed final price, but he also warned that waiting 12 to 18 months could push the price higher because of inflation in construction costs. Some council members questioned whether that price was too high, especially when compared to the cost of a house. Cartwright and Commissioner Patrick answered that a prosecutor’s office is not comparable to residential construction. They said a commercial government building has to meet tougher fire rules, accessibility rules, design review requirements and security needs. They pointed to features such as commercial doors, ADA-compliant restrooms, room sizes and circulation space, fire code requirements and state approval as reasons the price per square foot is much higher than for a house. Commissioner Patrick also said the county is trying to avoid the kind of design problems it has run into on other recent projects. That led to an explanation of the delivery method the county may use if it moves forward. Cartwright said the project could be done through what is called BOT, short for Build, Operate, Transfer. He described that as a public-private partnership allowed under Indiana law in which a private developer would handle the development, design and construction of the building, with the county ultimately taking ownership. He stressed that this is not the same as a normal low-bid public construction job. “It’s not a competitive bid situation. It’s purely a negotiated situation,” he said. He told the council the county commissioners have already adopted the BOT statute, which is the first legal step if they choose to use that process. After Cartwright finished, resident Sherrie Mitchell addressed the council and challenged both the process and the assumptions behind the proposal. “Why did I just listen to an hour of that?” she asked. She questioned whether county officials had any say in how the bond money is used, and then turned to the size of the project, saying the county was talking about a $1.3 million plan without, in her view, really proving why the current building could not be fixed for less. “So, you can take this $1.3 million project and turn it into a $500,000 project to remodel the prosecutor’s office,” she said, quickly adding that she was making up that number because no remodeling estimate had actually been presented. Mitchell also pushed back hard on the parking and security arguments. After hearing that parking and safety were major reasons to leave the current site, she told the council she had been to the courthouse three times in the last week and had no trouble finding a parking place. She closed by saying county officials were already in trouble because of bond debt and suggested the county should be much more cautious before taking on another large capital project. County officials did not make any final decision during the work session, and the council itself does not control whether the project moves forward. That is the commissioners’ decision. Featured Local Savings