(A) Findings and determinations.
(1) A review of the board minutes and other investigations discloses the to the best of the Board of County Commissioner’s knowledge that:
(a) With apparently but one exception, the Board of County Commissioners has maintained strict control over access to the Courthouse lawn, and such access has been limited in nature.
(b) In the limited instances there access has been permitted, it has been granted by the Board of County Commissioners to civic, non-profit organizations such as the United Way and Chamber of Commerce.
(c) For the past few years, a small gas torch has been erected on the northeast corner of the Courthouse lawn and lit in observance of Domestic Abuse Week. This torch burns for a few days annually and no signage or any sort accompanies the torch. Apparently, the Board of County Commissioners has never authorized this display by formal resolution.
(d) In December 1996, the Courthouse maintenance staff place Christmas lights on the evergreen trees growing on the Courthouse Lawn.
(e) It does not appear that the Board of County Commissioners has ever authorized, either formally or informally, any religious displays or symbols to be placed on the Courthouse lawn.
(f) The Board of County Commissioners is currently considering beautification of the Courthouse lawn and has caused the shrubs bordering the lawn to be removed as a first step in such beautification project.
(g) It does not appear that the Board of County Commissioners has ever acted by formal resolution to establish any written policy with regard to use of or access to the Courthouse lawn.
(h) It does not appear that the Courthouse lawn has ever been an open public forum, but rather any request for a display or other temporary use of the Courthouse lawn has been considered by the Board of County Commissioners on a limited request-by-request basis.
(i) The Board of County Commissioners does not believe that the Courthouse Lawn has been either a traditional or designated public forum.
(j) It does not appear that the Board of County Commissioners has ever declared the Courthouse lawn to be either a traditional public forum or a designated (limited) public forum and no such declarations appear in any board minutes.
(2) The Board of County Commissioners has been advised by the County Attorney that the United States Supreme Court case of Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993), and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals cases of Rabbi Grossbaum v. Indianapolis - Marion County Building Authority, 63 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 1995) and 100 F.3d 1287 (7th Cir. 1996), have only recently clarified the extent to which it is constitutionally permissible for a government authority to restrict access to public property, and this Board of County Commissioners seeks to clarify its position with respect to the use of and access of the County Courthouse lawn consistent with the legal principles set forth in these and other applicable court decisions.
(B) Declarations. Based upon the foregoing findings and determinations, be it ordained by the Board of County Commissioners that:
(1) The Board of County Commissioners does not now declare the Courthouse lawn to be a traditional public forum or to be a designated (limited) public forum, but now hereby declares the County Courthouse lawn (excluding the sidewalks and any benches which the county may erect and maintain for public seating purposes only, contiguous to and as an extension of the sidewalks) to be a non-public forum.
(2) As a non-public forum, the Board of County Commissioners hereby declares that the Courthouse lawn (excluding the sidewalks and any benches which the county may erect and maintain for public seating purposes only, contiguous to and as an extension of the sidewalks) shall be used exclusively by the government for governmental purposes, and no displays, signs or similar structures shall be permitted or authorized to be erected by any non-governmental private group upon the Courthouse lawn for any purpose.
(BCC Ord. 1997-8, passed 3-3-97) Penalty, see § 10.99