County to trade 96 acres for 10

With the foundation of the current jail crumbling and sinking while construction costs rise, Owen County is looking for a location to build a new jail, and soon.

The concern is that failure to do so could lead to a lawsuit that would bankrupt the county while forcing them to the same result — building a new jail.

The location of the current jail will be within the flood plain and size could not accommodate the four-acre facility planned to bring it up to code. The county specifically purchased storage units on an adjacent property to the current jail when they were for sale with the intention of building the new jail there.

Furthermore, bringing sewer services to the county-owned property on State Road 43 has been estimated to cost $9 million, which would be almost a third of the $26 million that the county council has determined the county can afford.

In order to cut out the cost of purchasing additional land, in a joint council and commissioners meeting in April, it was proposed that the county trade part of the land, including the former county landfill, for part of the property in and around the quarry currently owned by Brett Franklin, owner of Tri-State Timber, LLC. In that meeting, it was proposed that the county trade between 90 and 107 acres for 30 acres owned by Franklin.

Throughout the month of June, the acreage the county would receive in the deal has shrunk to just under 10 acres.

And to circumvent potentially losing the deal due to a difference in the appraisals and to allow for more flexibility in considering value beyond the appraisal the commissioners are looking to use the County Redevelopment Commission (RDC) as a passthrough for the property exchange.

“'I’ve had conversations and looked all over this town and county for property to build a jail, which is a huge concern and issue right now. I’ve toured so many jails in the last six or seven years, I don’t care if I ever see another one,” commissioner Gary Burton, who also sits on the RDC, said at their meeting on June 29. “We’ve been turned down in every direction that we possibly went.”

He continued.

“A lot of people might have thought I was crazy with the idea of 96 acres for 10, but that property out here that we’re talking about is non-buildable. It’s hills, hollers and has a five-acre old landfill on it that is limited to what can happen there. It’s the only flat piece on the whole property. The rest of it’s all for beans.”

He said the property “would make a good timber farm.”

Burton also said that the 9.64 acres they are looking to receive from Franklin is the only buildable land, and that the rest of it goes back into the quarry and is used for a log yard.

Burton continued advocating for the 9.64 acres.

“It gives the county room for growth for other buildings if need be,” he said.

He added that the commissioners entered into an agreement with Elevatus Architecture firm.

“This particular structure has to sit on, at least, four acres of property, just the building itself,” Burton said.

He then described some of the legal challenges, including two sets of appraisals from two different companies.

He said he contacted Rich Figg of Figg Appraisal Group and Jeffrey Goldin of Goldin Appraisal Group, both out of Monroe County, because there is not anyone in Owen County that “does those types of values.”

“I asked him to get them as close as they possibly could, and say that honestly. Help us get this as close as possible; one has infrastructure, one doesn’t,” Burton said.

He said that they ran into a wall and asked county attorney Dana Kerr to present more.

Kerr said he spoke to someone from the Indiana Association of Counties regarding the matter.

“If the appraisal for the property the county wants is more than the other property, then the county can trade that property plus the extra money, but there is no provision to get that property if what [the county is] giving up is worth more than the property they’re getting by appraisal,” Kerr said.

But the RDC is able to do so.

“Those appraisals should be requested by the RDC because since they could be off, it would be very difficult for the county to just get the property or to buy the property,” Kerr said.

Kerr suggested the county sell the property, but noted that they seem to like the idea of a property swap.

“We could go either way with that Dana. But I think we're all in agreeance with the council and our special meeting. If we can get this done with zero dollars, that was our hope,” Burton said. “Because what we’re finding is the county property, because of the amount of it is going to be worth a little but more than the roughly 10 acres that we’re looking at out here.”

Burton said that the property owner was not going to pay the difference because that was not part of the proposed deal. He also said that county council president Polly Chesser, who also sits on the RDC, had previously asked if there was more land that Franklin could add to help even out the appraised values.

“There’s just nothing there that is buildable on that site,” Burton said of the surrounding acreage owned by Franklin.

Kerr said that the appraisals would have to be requested by the RDC.

“Owen County can give the RCS that 97 acres … and then this RDC can enter into an agreement with the other property owner,” Kerr said. “The RDC has to have the appraisals, but it doesn’t matter what they say as long as the RDC takes into consideration what those appraisals are, because the RDC could say ‘look, we need a jail, we need a jail site, so that makes that property worth more to us,’ so even if the other property appraises for more, it doesn’t matter. You can still just swap the property.”

The RDC would then give the property back to the county.

“So basically you’re saying that the RDC has an ability to smooth out any differences of the appraisal based on the perception of what the county needs and the value we see in the properties, as opposed to the current situation, with [which] the county does not allow for that,” Craig Coffman, president of the RDC said.

“The land value to us is so much more important for what we’re trying to get accomplished, regardless of what that’s worth out there,” Burton said in the affirmative.

Burton said that the difference is not millions of dollars and that the appraisals are a lot closer than that.

“But there’s enough difference that it can cause scrutiny, I guess. But this way it is more important that we have a site to have future growth because right now we’re landlocked,” Burton said, referring to the current jail placement.

Coffman noted that as a certified public accountant (CPA) he knows that valuations are subjective and that it doesn't account for the location or utility access.

“It sounds like in our hands, we have the ability as a condition to work that out,” he said, adding that it sounds like it is in the best interest of the county.

“It absolutely is,” Burton affirmed, adding that it means the money not spent to purchase land can be used on building the jail.

The commissioners agreed to get blueprints for a $25 million jail, with $20 million for the jail structure itself and $5 million for soft costs.

“If we don't have to spend a dime out of our coffers in any way, shape or form to make this transaction, that's what it's all about,” Burton said.

Kerr said that the first step would be for the RDC to adopt a resolution authorizing/ratifying obtaining appraisals for both properties and a resolution approving the acquisition of the county property. The timeline for this is on or before July 17 when the commissioners meet again.

Burton had appraisals in sealed envelopes that he had not opened yet.

He also said the RDC could keep the property until the jail was built on it.

Chesser brought up ensuring that it passes the environmental study before purchasing or trading for the property.

“If we get this process started, Polly, I don’t see a reason why we can’t go ahead and do a test on that site. I mean, this is going to take a couple of months,” Burton said. “I want to say this to everybody here, other than Polly and I, I think that her and myself are in agreeance that this is the site, this is the place that it needs to happen, and we’re ready to move forward. So I know this seems like a process, but it’s the legal way to do it by the State of Indiana.”

“That’s why it’s really important to me to make sure we have all our ducks in a row,” Chesser said.

Burton stressed the importance of the project.

“But this is very, very important for the growth future of Owen County, and this jail project has been on tap for long before I got here. So it’s time to move forward. We came up with a plan. We’ve got a dollar amount. We’ve got a company. We’re ready to move forward,” he said.

Bobby Hall, who also serves on the RDC, clarified that the RDC would serve as the “handler of the business end of it all.” He noted that it is a standard process and that the Town of Spencer is doing the same thing with their sewer project at McCormick’s Creek State Park.

Kerr said that the RDC’s role is to help develop the county, and they can use that as a very significant factor in deciding what they can do. He too said the county could not rebuild on the current jail site, and Chesser said that it likely would not pass the environmental study.

Burton said that visitors likely wouldn’t know that it is a correctional facility from the road if it were not for the signage.

“It’s a very nice looking building,” he said.

Kerr said that with this design inmates, who are entitled to a certain number of hours of sunlight per day, will no longer need the old-style yards. Instead, as a two-story facility, the windows at the ceiling satisfy the requirements.

Burton said another bonus is the war room, of sorts, with a meeting room that he estimates as three times the size of the commissioners’ room in the courthouse.  

“That’s something that we don't have that was a big selling point for me is to make sure that was about to happen because the jails that we’ve toured, a couple of them had that,” Burton said.

Derek Morgan, president of the Spencer-Owen Community Schools Board of School Trustees and an ex-officio member of the RDC, asked about the public response so far.

“I can assure you, Derek, from our meetings as a joint session, everybody was on board with the land swap. This room was full, and there wasn’t one [member of the] public against it,” Burton said.

The proposed land swap in that meeting was that the county would receive 30 acres.

The group said that the only risk to the RDC was the cost of appraisals which Burton said the commissioners would reimburse the RDC for.

“I can tell you from the county standpoint, you’re our last hope, or this commission is, I’ll put it that way. Without spending any money, I shouldn't have said it that way. We can always say, ‘Yeah, we’ll pay the difference,’ or ‘We’ll just buy the property.’ We are just trying to save our reserves,” he said.

Hall moved that they move forward with the proposal and not have any commitments set in stone yet. Burton seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

The landfill opened in 1959 and closed in 1983. Burton said five of the acres are the landfill and that per the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), the top layer cannot be disturbed. He said that the obligations of that site transfer to the new property owner and Franklin is aware of them.

Criticism of the commissioners’ decision to move forward with the Elevatus contract was also a point of discussion at the June 10 county council meeting.

Chesser gave an update that the group met and went to see an Elevatus jail in Missouri that was almost complete. At that meeting, which preceded the RDC meeting, she asked for an update on the appraisals since Burton was at the council meeting.

“In our commissioner meeting [on June 5], fellow commissioners agreed to go ahead with the contract agreement with Elevatus that was finalized today (June 10),” Burton said.

“I do know that I’ve had a fellow councilman and then some others that were concerned about not putting [the Elevatus contract] up for bids. Is that something that is not usually done in something like that?” Chesser asked.

“Architects are not normally put up for bid,” Burton said.

Councilman Nick Robertson asked if the commissioners could have saved money by bidding it out.

“You don’t normally put architect bids out to bid,” Burton said. “You pick the company that you like the design.”

Burton said that the county had potential plans from RQAW Corporation from Fishers, Indiana that placed the project at $23 million and were a few years old.

Robertson continued to ask a question but was interrupted before he could finish.

“But we want to use…” Robertson said before Burton interrupted him, “The new sheriff and Polly and I have been on several tours and felt this was the best for the county because it comes with a large conference room. It’s a decision of the commissioners.”

Robertson wondered if RQAW could have had different plans and included that conference room in an updated proposal. Burton said it wasn’t part of their design and that it was different. He also blamed RQAW for $200,000 spent repairing things that were a design fault on the new Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) building.

Sam Hobbs, who is both former sheriff and the Republican nominee for Commissioner District 2, asked questions about the decision from the commissioners.

“We had a joint session between the commissioners and council, and Joel Lowe, who is not here, said that the drawings would go out to bid,” Hobbs said.

He asked why RQAW did not have a chance to bid on the project. He also asked how the commissioners could approve a contract that wasn’t finished yet.

Councilman Anton Neff clarified that the commissioners did not send the architecture contract to bid because it is a professional service, but ensured that they would have a bidding process for the construction of the jail.

“Just of the size and nature of the project, and the fact that the public is watching very closely over this project, I think maybe there is a miscalculation there,” Neff said of the commissioners’ decision to sign the Elevatus contract without bids. “It would have been wise to maybe reach out a little bit broader just for the effort to make sure there weren’t other firms that could offer their option.”

Burton said there are three firms in the state and that the other firms could not get within the county’s budget.

“Don’t get me wrong. That’s great, but I think just making some kind of effort would have been a good thing from a public standpoint,” Neff said.

“It was discussed in a commissioners meeting. It was public, and it’s on YouTube. It’s done, and it’s been voted on. I can’t go back and fix that,” Burton said.

“I know. I just think it’s unfortunate. That’s just my opinion. I think that it was clear at the work session a while back that we wanted to be, basically in an effort to be open and transparent, and those were some things that we wanted to see. And I think that for folks that follow back up on this meeting or read about it, there’s going to be a lot of folks that are not particularly happy with the way this happened,” Neff said. “I think that’s an error on our part, the county’s part in not doing that step. And yet it might have taken a little extra time, but to have those companies come in and speak would have probably been a wise idea, and it’s done now.”

Burton said that they had RQAW’s designs at the joining meeting in November 2023.

Neff pointed out that it was based on older design and things have changed through their discussion since then.

“We felt that we were saving the taxpayers quite a bit of money,” Burton said.

“On paper it may appear that way, but I think there’s a lot of moving parts,” Neff said. “It’s a bit complicated to make that connection, in my opinion, but I hope that moving forward, when we get to construction and other aspects of the project, we’re going to do everything we can to make sure people have a fair shake at this. And we can help ourselves keep the costs low as well.”

“That’s state law,” Burton interrupted.

“I know,” Neff continued, “but also make sure that we’re doing good for the public, to know what we’re doing and why we’re doing things the way we are.”

The RDC will meet at 2 p.m. July 11 to consider the necessary resolutions for the jail site acquisition. The full timeline of the proposal approved by the RDC can be found online.