The old Habersham County courthouse is slated to be demolished this year. After years of sitting idle, the county is now pushing through with a plan to tear down the eyesore of a building – at taxpayers’ expense.
The question of what to do with the old courthouse has been lingering in the public consciousness for years. In 2016, county officials and community members began talking about the future fate of the building once the county moved its offices into the new administration building across town.
As Now Habersham reported last week, the county is gathering bids from contractors to tear down the structure. The plan is to tear it down at taxpayers’ expense.
The lone bid
A year ago, the City of Clarkesville made a bid to purchase the courthouse property, but the county did not accept it. Habersham County Finance Director Tim Sims said that since there was only one bidder, the process had to start over and be rebid according to state law.
In February 2023, seemingly in response to that decision, Clarkesville placed a six-month moratorium on multi-family developments in the city. The move stalled talk of developing the courthouse into condominiums.
The moratorium also gave the city some control over the property’s development and spurred discussions between the city and the county as to what would be the best use for the downtown square property.
Grant funding
In March 2023, the Habersham County Development Authority discussed the challenges facing potential developers. The Authority said the city’s infrastructure would have a difficult time supporting an apartment building where the old courthouse is located. The Authority also discussed the county and city jointly applying for a grant to develop the property and address the infrastructure issues.
The next month, county officials and the Development Authority determined the property would sell faster without the building. They looked at possibly securing a Community Development Block Grant from the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) to cover demolition costs.
Then- county grant coordinator, Lauren Long, explained to the Authority at a meeting in May 2023 that securing a grant would be a long and tedious process. According to DCA, the county would most likely meet the requirements for the grant. However, there would be a few steps required before the county could move forward with a grant application. According to Sims, one of those steps was an environmental study that may have cost as much as $150,000. However, since the grant wasn’t applied for, the actual cost for the study was never determined.
IGA
The county did not apply for a grant, and three months later, Habersham County commissioners voted to have the taxpayers pay for the courthouse demolition.
In a 3-2 vote, commissioners agreed to an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for the Development Authority and Clarkesville to split the cost 50/50. The county will pay interest on the loan until the property is sold after demolition.
Proceeds from the sale of the property will be used to repay the loan amount, which under the terms of the IGA, is not to exceed $500,000.
If the county had applied for a grant, it could have potentially saved taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars since DCA would only require a 5% match (or $25,000) on a half-million dollar grant.
Chances are good such a grant would have been approved. According to Long, DCA looks favorably upon partnership grants.
Why the sudden rush?
The sudden urgency of demolishing the courthouse after years of letting it sit idle has put taxpayers on the hook for a $500,000 loan plus interest.
Proceeds from the sale are expected to cover that, but that’s money the county could have, otherwise, added to its coffers.
With the time that has elapsed since last February, the county, Development Authority, and the city could have developed a partnership sooner and applied for a grant that may have only cost the taxpayers $25,000.
Commissioner Bruce Palmer was the only commissioner who advocated for the county to seek grant funding for the courthouse demolition. He and Commissioner Jimmy Tench were the dissenting votes at the commission’s August 2023 meeting. Tench advocated for saving the courthouse for future office space and storage.
To this day, Palmer says it would have been the wise thing to do.
“Just my opinion, but I think it would have been wise to at least go through the grant process. The worst thing they could say is no.” Palmer added, “Even if it delayed the project, I think the county, the city, and the development authority would all be better off to pursue a grant.”
This article has been updated with new information that was requested but not provided until after its original publication
