Current Date
www.theowennews.org
The idea of swapping county-owned land on State Road 43 in exchange for land owned by Brett Franklin first was discussed during a joint council and commissioners meeting in April.
At the time, Commissioner’s President Gary Burton suggested the county consider a swap of 107 acres from the county that would allegedly cost $9 million to bring sewer to, for 30 acres owned by Franklin. The goal was simple: acquire land for the jail project without cutting into the $25 million allocated for the project.
Now, the proposed deal is for the county to swap 96 acres of county-owned land south of Franklin Road, including between five and seven acres that have Indiana Department of Environmental Management restrictions due to it being the former county landfill, for 9.64 acres of the 30 owned by Franklin.
The State of Indiana places limits on how much government agencies can lose if appraisals are too far off in a land swap deal, and those limits don’t apply to Redevelopment Commissions (RDC) that can consider other value-based factors that can’t be represented in an appraisal such as the county’s need for a location for the jail. Burton and County Council President Polly Chesser both sit on the RDC, along with RDC President Craig Coffman, member Bobby Hall and ex-officio member Derek Morgan, who is appointed by the Spencer-Owen Community Schools Board of School Trustees.
The process also happens to circumvent the approval of the county council, which serves as the fiscal body of county government.
Public records request provides approximate appraisal difference
Emails obtained through a public records request that the auditor’s office complied with show that Burton received the appraisals from Rich Figg of Bloomington-based Figg Appraisal Group on June 14, two weeks before the June 28 RDC meeting, and several days before the June 19 commissioners meeting. Transferring the property to the RDC to allow for the difference in appraised value was not brought up at that time.
Burton forwarded the appraisal reports to County Auditor Sheila Reeves. Reeves responded by asking if Burton wanted her to print copies for the other two commissioners – Bob Curry and Joel Lowe.
Burton responded the following Monday, June 17, “Please give me an extra copy for Brett Franklin. GB.”
Reeves then responded that she would do so, to which Burton responded, “Thank you! I will try to get with him before Wednesday if possible.
An updated appraisal was emailed to Burton on June 19, and that appraisal was forwarded to County Auditor Shelia Reeves on June 24.
While the appraisals themselves were not able to be obtained through the public records request, the attachment file names associated with the email indicate that 96.39 acres of county land was appraised and that 9.57 acres of the property owned by Franklin was appraised by Figg.
Another email from Chesser to her fellow council members, Reeves and the council’s attorney Tony Overholt gave insight as to what sort of gap exists between the appraisals. In the email dated June 9, Chesser also sought advice from Overholt as to whether or not the process as presented to them was indeed legal.
“It was reported that the county land was appraised roughly $100,000 more than Tri-State’s land,” the email reads.
Commissioner unaware of RDC purpose, process at July 3 meeting
The July 3 commissioner’s meeting was the first commissioner’s meeting following the receipt of the appraisals that the jail project and the RDC were mentioned in.
“The jail update has been moved over to the redevelopment committee,” Burton said.
County Attorney Dana Kerr went through the proposed timeline that was first discussed during the June RDC meeting.
“Can you explain more in depth as to why we’re turning this over to the redevelopment for those who aren’t up to speed? I’m a little behind on this myself,” Lowe said in the meeting.
Kerr explained that county land was likely to be appraised for more than the jail site property.
“My question would be are we leaving anything on the table,” Lowe said. “My worst fear is I don’t want to leave anything on the table here.”
Burton said that the infrastructure difference makes it valuable to the county.
“At what point did we decide to turn this over to the redevelopment committee?” Lowe asked.
Burton responded, “It has to come back to us anyway.”
Process circumvents council’s fiscal power
Then, during the July 8 council meeting, the topic came up twice, first as an update near the start of the meeting and again during public comment.
Chesser asked if Burton wanted to give the update and explain the RDC component.
“We just turned it over to the redevelopment committee. By state guidelines, it’s best that we let them take care of the transfer of the property, that way if there’s any difference in values it goes into more of a redevelopment or economic development for the county,” Burton said. “We’re doing it the legal way, and we’re doing it the right way.”
He added that the environmental study will be pursued during this process as well.
“We obviously don’t want to do a transfer of property and find out that we have an issue,” he said.
Councilman Anton Neff asked several questions to clarify the timeline and specifically that the council would not have any vote on this land purchase. Councilman Andy Wood also asked if the “goal post” was being moved away from the 30 acres, and Burton said that the full 30 acres isn’t buildable.
Later, during the public comment portion of the meeting, former sheriff and currently unopposed Republican commissioner nominee Sam Hobbs asked several questions relating to the project.
“I kind of get the sense that this board change was in relation to something that happened. I don't think it happened on a whim. I kind of get the feeling that this whole circumvention of the council thing happened because there was something they wanted done and didn't want brought back here which looks like it worked out,” Wood said.
He noted that any county purchase goes through the council.
“I’m just seeing lots of things that undermine processes in order to get a desired result, and I don’t like it,” he said.
Neff noted, “There’s still the potential for a loss.”
He reiterated that the desire across the board was to have zero cost related to the site of the jail so more money could be put into the building of the facility. The first best option financially was to build upon land already owned by the county. The second best option, he noted, was to do an even land swap.
“Whether that’s an equitable swap is yet to be determined and whether that is exactly what we want to end up doing may or may not come to a vote,” Neff said of the council.
Councilman Nick Robertson also criticized the process.
“It seems like some of the truth is being withheld from us, and here we are to make some decisions. We control the purse strings. How can we make good decisions to protect the public if we’re not given good facts?” he asked before adding, “This bothers me.”
He pointed out that the initial agreement was that the trade would be for 30 acres.
“We can’t see an estimate? We can’t see appraisals? This is a farce,” he said.
RDC accepts property, attorney advises appraisals not for public
The jail project proportion of the July 11 RDC meeting started with Dustin Meeks, an associate attorney with Barnes and Thornburg.
“The reason to do that is the redevelopment commission has the ability to dispose of property using more simplified procedures than the county does,” Meeks said.
He explained the two resolutions. The first authorizes the RDC to acquire the property from the commissioners, and the second ratifies the receipt of the appraisals for the properties.
Kerr said that there would be a public hearing that will occur as part of the process, likely in September.
Chesser asked if the appraisals would be made available for the public to view.
“Both of the statutes, 36-7–14-19 and 36-7-14-22 provide that the appraisal documents are only for the review and information of the redevelopment commission, so those documents are not public records,” Meeks said.
Chesser asked what the purpose was behind those state statutes.
“The reason that the general assembly has provided this particular requirement around appraisals is that… the redevelopment commission exists as a more flexible tool for local units of government to engage in economic development transactions, And that often requires negotiation with third parties,” Meeks said. “The statute is structured to avoid a situation where the redevelopment commission is not able to engage in negotiations because the information that they give you creates a kind of information inequality between the negotiating parties, who then engage in negotiations with a third party or acquiring property from. So here, where, the redevelopment commission is going to acquire a piece of property, it would be disadvantageous, for example, for the owner of that property, to have a copy of appraisals that you have, to know what the true value of that property might be.”
Except, Burton already requested a printed copy of the appraisals for that property owner, Franklin.
Coffman asked if it could become public afterward.
Meeks said the term sheet, which would be set by the value of the county-owned property would be made public because there would be a 30-day period in which anyone could put in an offer in conformance with the term sheet to purchase the 96 acres of county property.
Meeks said that there is no law against making those appraisals public.
“It’s just that statutorily they’re designed to not be public records documents themselves for the strategic reasons that the redevelopment commission is engaged, generally in a property transaction related to those appraisals,” he said.
“The whole purpose of this confidentiality is to protect our entity when we’re in the negotiation process,” Coffman said.
He said he wanted transparency afterward.
“Certainly after the consummation of the transaction, when there isn’t the possibility of that information being public would damage your negotiating position, there wouldn’t be any reason why you couldn’t publish those documents. It would just be potentially disadvantageous. And the General Assembly has provided the ability to not disclose that information to avoid that disadvantage,” Meeks said.
Coffman then opened the meeting to public comment.
“There’s gonna be a lot of unanswered questions at this point, but I am interested in your concerns so we can weigh those as a body,” he said. “We’ll be glad to be transparent about it when we’re allowed to.”
Hobbs asked if the RDC could legally share the appraisals if they wanted to.
“The statute provides that the documents are for the redevelopment commission’s information and not for public distribution,” Meeks said. “The statute doesn’t provide a penalty for the distribution of those.”
“I’m on board with this transfer, and I feel like it is absolutely in the best interest of the county. I’m not on board with not having appraisals being public. I want this to be totally, totally transparent,” Chesser said. “I’ve told multiple people that come to this meeting, it is going to be made public what the appraisals are and you’ll see that it’s not that far apart, and now that we can’t even do that, I can’t, that upsets me.”
Coffman noted that if the RDC thinks that the appraisals are too far apart, the RDC could decide to not move forward with the swap.
“I just want to touch base on the county's aspect with this,” Burton said. “We're trying to transfer a piece of property that we’ve had in our possession for over 50 years with no tax monies coming in on 96 acres. Zero dollars with the liability of a landfill, transferring that piece of property that can be used for a forest farm, tree farm, whatever for a usable piece of property with the infrastructure that we need, at no dollars, all we’re gaining is property tax on the backside of that.”
Burton could not answer how much the county would gain in property taxes.
The Indiana Department of Natural Resources offers a property tax incentive to landowners who agree to manage their land for timber, wildlife habitation and water quality through their CLassified Forest and Wildlands Program.
DNR provides the following explanation and example, “The enrollment in the program reduces that assessed value for tax purposes to $1 per acre. Taxes are then calculated based on that assessment: $1 x number of acres x tax rate. For a 40-acre tract at a two percent tax rate, the taxes would be $0.80 (landowner would receive minimum tax bill of $5).”
Councilwoman Amy Casebeer was present at the RDC meeting and asked about the timber on the county-owned land.
“My concern is Amy, if we market that timber and cut that timber, that is the only reason anybody would buy this property that I can tell,” Chesser said.
Casebeer asked if the timber value was included in the appraisal, to which Burton said it was not.
Sheriff Ryan White noted that to build at the current jail site, it would cost between $1.8 and $2.4 million to house the county’s inmates elsewhere and that the site doesn’t allow for additional growth should it be needed as the population grows in the future, placing the county in the same predicament in the future.
“Why would we spend that much taxpayer money building two jails when we can build one jail, get what we need and have the room for future expansion if that is needed? We will shoot ourselves in the foot if we build on that property,” White said.
Both resolutions were approved unanimously, 4-0, by the RDC. Morgan was not present for the meeting.
The commissioners moved forward with their identical resolution during their July 17 meeting.
Two of the three Owen County Commissioners are new to their positions. Those new commissioners are former sheriff Sam Hobbs and David Risk.
In fact, the only commissioner who isn’t new to the position is Gary Burton, the board's former president.
At the beginning of the commissioners’ first meeting of 2025, held on Jan. 9, Hobbs was unanimously elected president of the board, and Risk was unanimously elected vice president.
Immediately following the reorganization, Hobbs gave a monologue about what can be expected from the board moving forward.
“It’s going to be kind of a lengthy meeting. We got a lot to go through. I’m not here to upset the apple cart with anybody, but I’m going to. It’s just the nature of the beast,” Hobbs began. “I base my faith off of God being in control because He is. We’re just here to do His will and try to make the best of a community that is falling apart.”
After sharing his long-standing attendance at these sorts of public meetings, Hobbs commented on a trend.
“The thing that I’ve seen in the last several years of coming to the meetings and stuff like that is the discord and dislike between the employees, whether you’re elected or appointed or whatever, has turned into a hatred. And it’s going to end. The reason I say that is we’re a team here together,” Hobbs said. “We were elected to serve the people and that’s exactly what we’re going to do. The people have a voice. You’re taxpayers. You’ll have a voice in every commissioners’ meeting. That’s only right. I expect your ideas, your vision, your goals and your solutions to some of the problems that we have.”
Hobbs then quoted Proverbs 23:19.
“This county is going to have a vision for everybody, not just for self-centered seeking thumb-sucking selfish people. I won’t tolerate it. I won’t tolerate rude behavior from nobody,” Hobbs said. “I’m in no way here to tell anybody to pack up and get going. If you’re not doing your job that’s required of you, there’s going to be a problem.”
Hobbs then said that employees are the county’s biggest liability and the county’s biggest asset.
“We’re going to work together as a team,” he said.
He then reiterated that the commissioners do not have any authority over other elected officials. He also said that commissioners should allow for autonomy and leadership from the county’s department heads saying they have a business to run.
Hobbs was clear that department heads could and should ask for guidance and help from the commissioners when needed and said the commissioners will not interfere unless asked or unless there is an issue.
“I’m new at this part [being a commissioner], but I’m not new at being around here. I’ve seen how some people have been treated and mistreated, and rest assured of one thing. That’s coming to an end, like real soon,” Hobbs said.
Then, instead of making the usual first meeting of the year liaison appointments, Hobbs announced that those appointments would not be made until February. He cited a “legal problem” but did not go into details.
“There’s some things facing this county that is going to be revealed in the next 30 to 60 days that could change the whole outlook on certain things,” he said.
One and only one liaison appointment was made, and that was for Risk to serve as the liaison for the highway department.
“Gary cannot do that because his wife works there,” Hobbs said.
Until appointments are made in February, Hobbs said that he would serve as the liaison for the auditor’s office and appointed department heads. He noted that elected officials can go to any of the commissioners that they want.
The commissioners then began with the routine business of approving the meeting minutes and claims.
In both this meeting and the Jan. 23 meeting, the commissioners addressed the extensive and inappropriate amount of out-of-cycle claims.
The board then went on to new business.
“This is where the rubber is going to meet the road for some of you,” Hobbs said, adding that it was unfortunate that not everything was going to be good news.
The first matter that was addressed was the contract with Dana Kerr for his services as county attorney.
“We’ve been through this for a couple of months. The current attorney is not here today. He is sick. We wish him the best in his recovery,” Hobbs began. “Dana is not here today, but we have to proceed with business. This has been discussed briefly in a couple commissioners meetings. The contract that the current attorney has is on a week-to-week basis at the moment.”
“Mr. Kerr’s last day will be Jan. 31. I’m not going to sit here and bad mouth him, run him down or anything like that. He did what he did and done what he’s done for what he thought was right. He’s an attorney. I do feel and I believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Kerr was led down a couple roads that he shouldn’t have had to go down. That’s my two cents worth. I think if Mr. Kerr had things to do over again, they would be done different. Again, this is my opinion.”
With that, Hobbs moved to relieve Kerr of his duties as county attorney as of Jan. 31. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.
“This is not the end of this story,” Hobbs said.
After allowing him to introduce himself, the commissioners hired Tony Overholt from Frost Brown Todd Attorneys in Indianapolis. Overholt has served as the attorney for the county council. The commissioners hired Overholt, who has been an attorney for 30 years, for six months. Overholt has experience representing local government.
Overholt will be paid between $350 and $375 per hour.
There is $160,000 budgeted for the county attorney. Under Kerr’s extended 2022 contract that served from week to week until the end of January, approximately $13,000 would have been spent from the $160,000 budgeted for county legal expenses.
The council separately has budgeted approximately $40,000 for their legal expenses, as Kerr did not represent the council.
At the high end of Overholt’s rate, the county commissioners would have a total of 392 hours before exceeding the appropriation. This translates to a weekly average of roughly 7.5 hours per week without going to the county council for an additional appropriation.
During the approximately four-hour first meeting, the commissioners also:
The commissioners also held a joint meeting with the Owen County Council on Jan. 23. A story on that meeting will be made available soon on The Owen News website, theowennews.org. The commissioners met again yesterday, Feb. 6, and they will meet again at 6 p.m. on Feb. 20 in the second-floor Commissioners Room of the Owen County Courthouse, 60 S. Main St., Spencer.
In celebration of its 31st anniversary, the Owen County Community Foundation (OCCF) is thrilled to announce the return of the $1 for $1 Anniversary Match Campaign, building on the incredible success of last year’s 30th anniversary event.
In 2024, nearly $200,000 was raised to support local nonprofits serving Owen County. This year, OCCF invites donors and nonprofits to make an even greater impact.
Running from Feb. 1 through Feb. 28, this match campaign offers a $1 for $1 match for donations made to Agency and Designated funds established at OCCF. These funds specifically support the work of nonprofits serving Owen County, providing them with both immediate resources and long-term sustainability.
“Spencer Main Street, Inc., took a big step forward in 2024 by establishing an agency fund with ‘our’ Owen County Community Foundation,” Julie Coffin, President of Spencer Main Street, Inc. said. “I think we don’t even realize yet how this strengthens our organization in terms of keeping us sustainable and giving us longevity. And those are vital qualities to have because we intend to keep working to make sure that Historic Downtown Spencer continues to be the heart and center of our community for another 205 years. The first word of our mission statement is ‘collaboration,’ and we are so grateful for OCCF’s support and collaboration as we all go forward!”
How the Match Works
For every dollar donated to an eligible fund, OCCF will provide a matching gift, which is designed to strengthen nonprofits in two ways:
This model allows nonprofits to meet immediate needs while building a stable financial foundation for the future.Participating Funds
Only Agency and Designated funds are eligible for the match. These funds support a wide range of causes, including youth development, historic preservation, animal welfare, community health, and more. A full list of participating funds is available on the OCCF website or by contacting the OCCF office directly. As of Feb. 5, the following funds were included in the matching campaign:
How to Donate
Organizations can accept donations in the following ways:
Join Us in Building a Brighter Future“The success of last year’s 30th Anniversary Match Campaign was a testament to the generosity and commitment of our community,” Karah Bobeck, OCCF’s Programs and Communications Director said. “We’re excited to offer this opportunity again and look forward to seeing the incredible impact it will have for Owen County nonprofits.”Nonprofits interested in participating in this campaign and establishing a fund at the OCCF, should contact the OCCF’s office at 812-829-1725.
A Gosport home was destroyed by a fast-moving fire that broke out around 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 24.
The first wave of firefighters and emergency personnel arrived on the scene a short time later to find heavy smoke billowing from the roof and flames engulfing the front porch of the home at 246 E. South St.
Homeowner Bryan Rogers was at home when the fire broke out and was reportedly unharmed, declining medical treatment at the scene from the Owen County Emergency Medical Service.
The American Red Cross was later contacted to help meet Rogers’ immediate emergency needs.
According to the Gosport Volunteer Fire Department, a cause for the fire was undetermined.
Firefighters estimated around 30,000 gallons of water was used to battle the morning blaze.
The Gosport VFD received mutual aid from the Owen Valley Fire Territory, Bean Blossom Township-Stinesville VFD, Owen County Sheriff’s Department and the Owen County EMS.
Fire personnel were called back to the scene around 12:30 p.m. where they were able to quickly squelch the rekindled debris at the home, located on the southwest corner of East South and South Second streets.
Founded by The Owen News Project Inc.
.jpg)
