McCulloch County Judge Randy Young sat in front of about 25 county officials and apologized. He had developed a peculiar twitch, he said, and it tended to come out whenever he thought about his county’s courthouse renovation project — an important project, but one that came with more than its share of challenges.

His county had been attempting to preserve its courthouse ever since the Texas Historic Courthouse Preservation Program was first announced back in 1999 and funding first became available in May 2000. Round after round, the county submitted its master plan for the renovation, hoping to eventually score enough points to be awarded a grant. The county finally received a $354,146 planning grant back in 2004, and funding for construction followed this year.

After trying to make the project happen for so long, Young said it was a major adjustment to go from planning to construction.

“I woke up the day of this announcement just realizing that the world was changing for me and I didn’t have a clue,” Young said. “We had done all the preliminary work … and then they just give you a date when construction will begin. But there is a gap in there that no one talks about, that the architect does not want to talk about, and that is, that you’re going to vacate the courthouse on a given day and you’re going to move X number of officials out.”

The mere thought of it caused the judge’s eye to twitch again.

“It’s just from the stress of the situation of moving out,” he said. “I thought, someone has got to know about the pitfalls to watch out for during the time you’re moving. What do you do with the records?”

Fortunately, for officials now going through the renovation process there is a body of knowledge available to talk about those issues. When the renovation projects first began in 2000, that wasn’t the case, but since then, more than 60 courthouses have actually undergone restoration, and 124 master plans have been approved.

Young was participating in the Texas Association of Counties Courthouse Renovation Workshop, held in April. The purpose of the workshop, which sprouted from a TAC-managed county judges’ listserv in which judges expressed questions about getting through the courthouse preservation process, was to discuss the types of logistical challenges involved with courthouse preservation that may be outside the scope of the Texas Historical Commission’s expertise. Judges had questions about moving operations out of courthouses during renovations, moving back in afterward, how to address which departments should find permanent new homes if the renovations resulted in reduced office space, and what to expect regarding future maintenance costs after the project had been completed.

Young was still going through the process, but his fellow speakers Milam County Judge Frank Summers, Goliad County Judge Har old Gleinser and Fayette County Judge Ed Janecka had all been there.

The four judges had all had different experiences when it came to their courthouse renovation projects.

Milam County was one of the first courthouses to receive preservation grant funding. The courthouse was built in 1892, but was suffering from water infiltration, causing the basement walls to deteriorate. Besides improving the site’s drainage and waterproofing, the renovation funding restored the building’s limestone facades and porticos — its exterior and entrance — and replaced the courthouse’s aluminum windows with wood. It also paid for the reconstruction of the building’s corner and roof pavilions, which had originally been made of heavy stone that had deteriorated and fallen off in the 1930s. The restoration also refurbished the courthouse’s bell tower and clock.

The Fayette County Courthouse was designed in 1891, but over the years certain features of its original design had been taken away in order to increase office and vault space. When it was preserved in 2003, the entire building went back to its original design, meaning that offices in the center of the building were gutted, resulting in less office space. However, the new courthouse now includes an open atrium at its center, which provides natural ventilation, lighting, a large fountain, cast iron sculptures and tropical plants. Because of the atrium and natural lighting, utility costs for the building have decreased since the construction, said Janecka.

“From an electrical standpoint, we were extremely inefficient,” Janecka said. “From our maintenance standpoint, the renovation has been a godsend. We don’t have boards falling off or wiring problems.” The Goliad County Courthouse was another pre-20th century building, designed in 1894.

The building had lost several of its towers to a hurricane in 1942, and they had never been replaced. The original cement tile floors had been covered and the interior had been repartitioned.

The renovation transformed the building, as the towers were finally recreated and suspended ceilings inside the building were removed to reveal metal vaulting. “I think everyone here feels strongly that their communities were in support of what they did,” said Sharon Fleming, with the Texas Historical Commission when describing the projects. “Culturally these buildings are major assets. It’s a time of great celebration and great fanfare. … The communities surrounding these courthouses have a revitalization.

Real estate prices surrounding the square go up afterward and there is generally an increased sense of pride.”

Most of the judges agreed that the courthouse preservation projects completed in their county had improved economic development nearby, whether it was because the county began renting space near the courthouse or because other business owners invested funds in restoring their own real estate. Still, Young said building support may be difficult, not so much with the community, but with other county officials and among the commissioners court members, who have to look at the initial costs of hiring an architect to create a master plan and face the possibility that they may not gain funding for the project.

“It’s a long, arduous process,” Young said. “I don’t think we could have survived another round. … My commissioners were feeling pretty bled up for a small county that didn’t have a lot of money. It’s hard when you say, ‘We’re going to give $50,000 for this master plan and all we’re going to have for it is this little binder.’ It’s a tough sell.”

Young said he found it necessary to take the process in steps, and to think of the big picture “Back when they were first built, the courthouses were a promise. That’s where we are at again right now. We’re having to make that promise for the future,” he said, adding that county residents responded. “Immediately on doing that master plan, the local businesses began banking on those restorations. We saw local economic benefit immediately, but if we had known how much it was going to cost us to get to the point where we are at right now before we had started this, we would have said there is no way we can get there.”

He said his first piece of advice for other judges just starting the process would be to find the right people to do some fundraising and support-gathering for the project, whether it’s a fundraising firm or the local historical commission.

“You’re not the right person to be up there. You’re the guy who has the ability to raise taxes, and (taxpayers) don’t want you to be there championing the cause,” Young said.

Milam County Judge Summers said his own challenges centered on relocating departments permanently after the construction was completed. The renovations meant less office space would be found inside the courthouse, which at the time construction began had housed all the major countywide offices.

“Who is not moving back?” was the question of the day. The county had to purchase additional property and kick officials out of a brand new courthouse with high-tech air conditioning and other nice features.

The decentralization of county government after courthouse renovations took place was an issue across the board, and a concern among officials still going through the grant funding application process.

“You have to have a good balance of use,” Fleming said. “You have to decide who makes the best fit in your building so that you’re maximizing space. Long term, you’re not going to want to spend the money maintaining a building that only houses four people.”

Judges said the county clerk and the probation departments were the first to go, since they required the most office space and had the most employees and the most foot traffic. Moving those offices out once is difficult enough; moving them back may not be feasible or an efficient use of energy, especially in growing counties.

Though utility and maintenance costs may go down after a courthouse is preserved, judges said that in actually, overall utility and maintenance costs may be higher since usually, a preserved court house lacks the office space it once had. Departments are forced to move into new quarters, and the cost of maintaining and powering multiple buildings offset cost-savings from having a more efficient courthouse.

“You’re going to have to come up with new space, which means new utilities, new maintenance,” Summers cautioned, adding that maintenance costs for the county have gone up 15 to 20 percent since the construction, and utilities have gone up about 30 percent. Part of the increased costs are because the county’s old courthouse had virtually no technological capabilities; now, everyone has a computer and the county pays for wireless Internet access. Lawyers with laptops loiter around the courthouse daily, he added.

Judges cautioned others to be selective about following architect and contractor recommendations, especially when it comes to unnecessary but costly heating and air conditioning features. It’s important to plan for future technological needs prior to construction, since many companies don’t want to work on a historically protected building.

Several judges said the decentralization of the county government offices and the lack of office space that would be apparent after renovations made them question whether preserving their courthouses was the best decision for the county. Functionally, several mentioned trying to use the old courthouses as museums and building new larger one-stop courthouses. However, those kinds of solutions would limit a courthouse’s chances of gaining preservation funding.

“This is the choice that every county makes, about what they want their future to be,” Fleming said, adding that the THC is aware of the battle between history and functionality, adding that the commission tries to be as sensitive as possible to counties’ lighting, sound and utility needs. Acoustically, the commission has learned several simple tricks during previous courthouse renovations, including things like laying carpet on courtroom floors and putting cushions across the seating — additions that can be easily removed. “We need to look at the ways that we can incorporate energy technologies into historical buildings.”

The more sensitive historical component of the preservations focuses on the buildings’ exteriors, public hallways and courthouses, as well as permanent furnishings such as courtroom seating, the judge’s bench and jury boxes. Preservation funding does allow for some adjustments to those items, such as creating wider seating. Plans for restrooms, break rooms and office areas are more negotiable.

Security is another problem that judges must confront when dealing with a preservation grant. Inner security — such as high-tech scanners or video cameras — should be planned for ahead of time, but it’s the low-tech security measures that can create some debate. Measures like closing off or locking entrances change the way the public interacts with the building.

Despite the challenges and decision-making involved in courthouse preservation, officials around the state are still making use of the courthouse preservation dollars and take pride in doing so. During the last round of grant funding, the THC awarded another $56 million to 17 counties — including McCullough — wanting to preserve their courthouses. Officials in Cass, Cooke, Fannin, Hall, Hamilton, Harris, Hood, Kendall, Lasalle, Lavaca, Mills, Potter, Randall, Roberts, San Augustine and Trinity counties will soon have renovated courthouses, and officials in at least 30 other counties have submitted master plans that are still awaiting approval in a future funding cycle. Prior to the Texas Historic Preservation Program’s beginnings, it was estimated that 234 of the state’s courthouses were in disrepair.