Sumner County panel reconstitutes ad hoc group to push forward restoration of William and Martha Brown House

Sumner County’s General Operations Committee voted Wednesday to dissolve the current ad hoc committee overseeing the William and Martha Brown House restoration and reconstitute a new panel that will include county and school representatives and a citizen appointee, after more than an hour of public comment and debate.

The vote followed repeated public pleas to preserve the historic property and calls from speakers who cited a bequest that, they said, restricts $500,000 for a park with the Brown house as its centerpiece. Cynthia McLeod, who said she lives next door, read from estate documents and told the committee, “The park shall be known as the William And Martha Brown Park.”

The item drew extensive public comment from descendants and neighbors. Jim Latimer described the house’s history and urged county officials to “honor Mister Brown’s wishes.” Michael Clark, another neighbor, said the building is boarded and deteriorating and urged the committee to let the ad hoc group continue its work. Commissioners and school-board representatives then debated whether to keep the existing ad hoc membership, reconstitute the group with new members or pause work until the architect selection RFQ process is complete.

Committee members stressed two recurring points: the county controls the funds and therefore has responsibility for the restoration budget, and the school system is a co-owner of some of the land and should be included in decisions. Jeremy Mansfield, who said he had helped coordinate documents and family outreach, summarized progress on project planning and funding: the committee has an estimated project budget in the range discussed at the meeting (participants referenced roughly $587,000) and the county’s finance office is preparing an RFQ for architects to produce a more detailed scope and cost estimate.

After amendments and extended debate about membership, the committee approved a motion to dissolve the current ad hoc committee and reconstitute a panel that includes school representation, county commissioners and a citizen representative (the motion proposed Jim Latimer as the citizen member). The committee recorded the motion as approved; the transcript shows the chair’s announcement of the final vote as “4 yes, 3 no.”

Discussion only: committee members asked for more technical assessments before major expenditure decisions. Several commissioners asked whether the house had been tested for mold or other hazardous materials and whether historic-designation requirements or grant conditions would change project cost. Commissioner comments noted that historic or grant-driven preservation work could greatly increase costs beyond the bequest and the current county budget.

Next steps: committee members and staff said the finance office will issue the RFQ for architects (the RFQ process was described in public comments as planned to be published the following week) and the reconstituted committee will work with county staff to review architect proposals and produce a recommended scope and cost estimate before any larger contracting decisions.

Ending: Committee members renewed appeals to move the project forward quickly; members and public commenters asked the committee to preserve the house as the centerpiece of the park fund described in the will and codicil, and to report back with RFQ outcomes and technical assessments at a future meeting.