We're "ON" It! - The Owen News

A two-year investigation recently culminated in the arrest of 24-year-old Kenron Laing of Crown Point, Indiana. Laing was arrested on a warrant in connection with the 2022 murder of Gildardo Garcia Salinas, 39, in northern Owen County.

Detectives from the Indiana State Police (ISP) Bloomington Post traveled to Fort Liberty, northwest of Fayetteville, North Carolina on Nov. 14 where they were joined by Army Criminal Investigation Division agents in arresting Laing, who authorities say was taken into custody without incident.

Fort Liberty, formerly known as Fort Bragg, is one of the largest military installations in the world by population, with over 52,000 military personnel.

According to an article published in the Nov. 20, 2024 edition of Stars and Stripes, a daily newspaper reporting on matters concerning members of the United States Armed Forces, Laing enlisted in the Army in August 2023, about 10 months after Salinas was killed.

Private First Class Laing was identified by Stars and Stripes as a petroleum supply specialist assigned to the 82nd Airborne’s 2nd Brigade Combat Team.

After waiving extradition, Laing was transported from the Cumberland County Jail where he had been awaiting extradition to Owen County to stand trial.

An initial hearing was held on Nov. 21, where Owen County Prosecutor Benjamin Kim said Laing was advised of the charges against him and his constitutional rights as an accused facing criminal charges.

A public defender was appointed by the court to represent Laing, who remains in custody without bond at the Owen County Security Center pending a trial by jury, which is slated to begin on Aug. 11, 2025.

Fatal shooting

According to a probable cause affidavit filed in the case by ISP Detective Ian Matthews, authorities from the state police were contacted on Nov. 2, 2022 to initiate an investigation following the shooting death of Salinas. The shooting happened at Salinas’ residence in the area of North Cataract Road and U.S. 231.

Authorities with the Owen County Sheriff’s Department (OCSD) were first on the scene, having been notified via a 911 phone call received at approximately 8:25 p.m., the probable cause affidavit indicates. The caller reported gunshots had been fired and a male had been shot. Police arrived shortly thereafter to find Salinas deceased outside of his home from apparent gunshot wounds.

According to the probable cause affidavit, Salinas, his wife Brandy Pocasangre, and her 14-year-old daughter were inside the home when they heard noise coming from the kitchen door on the home’s east side.

“She stated that after hearing the noise they realized that a black male was attempting to push his way into the door, prompting (Salinas) to grab his shotgun that was nearby in the kitchen, holding it horizontally across his chest to block the male from coming inside,” the probable cause affidavit notes.

Salinas was reportedly able to “nudge” the intruder outside the door, with the door closing behind them. Once outside, the probable cause affidavit details how Salinas engaged in what his wife later advised sounded like a “struggle or fight
on or near the outside porch.”

Fearful, Pocasangre told authorities how she waited for a short time before she “yelled from inside the home and walked toward the east side door as she heard numerous gunshots,” the probable cause affidavit explains. Now armed with a handgun that had been retrieved from inside the home by her daughter, Pocasangre reportedly opened the door and saw the same black male that her husband had confronted at the door fleeing on foot from the south side steps of the porch to an awaiting vehicle parked to the north of the home.

The victim’s wife later described the shooter to authorities as a “black male wearing black/dark clothing with a hoodie, balaclava-style mask covering his chin area, skinny, dark complexion, wide nose, black hair in front with fuzzy braids or Afro, possible whiskers, ‘peach fuzz’ on face.” He appeared to be in his early to mid-20s, she told police, and stood approximately six feet tall.

Although the suspect had been wearing what appeared to be a balaclava-style mask when he initially confronted her husband at the door, Pocasangre described to authorities how it was “pulled down below his chin, allowing her to see his full face.”

She also recounted to authorities how she attended to her injured husband after the vehicle fled, noticing he had a “gunshot wound to the upper forehead and additional gunshot wounds around his chest and abdomen,” according to the probable cause affidavit.

Pocasangre attempted to administer CPR and lifesaving measures until
authorities arrived, the probable cause affidavit reveals, while also checking on the welfare of her daughter and instructing her to call 911 for help.

When deputies arrived on the scene, they encountered Salinas laying in the grass near the east side door of the home. The injured man was still moving, the probable cause affidavit details, which prompted authorities to call for emergency medical technicians (EMT), who upon arrival also attempted lifesaving measures before Salinas succumbed to his injuries. He was later pronounced deceased at the scene.

Phones recovered at scene

During the investigation that followed, detectives learned from Pocasangre how Salinas had discovered an abandoned black bag in the courtyard of an Indianapolis-area motel. Salinas was employed by a landscaping company, authorities would discover, and had been on the hotel grounds that day with a landscaping crew.

Contained inside the bag were drugs and drug paraphernalia, according to the statement given to authorities by Pocasangre, along with an iPhone. She told authorities how her husband had sent her a picture of the motel courtyard and showed her a video of him “stomping out the drugs,” stating to her that the drugs could hurt someone, “especially a child.”

Salinas brought the bag and iPhone home with him after leaving work later that day, according to the probable cause affidavit, showing his wife the iPhone and its case before reportedly telling her he planned to return the phone to his workplace the next day.

Further details provided by Pocasangre would lead authorities to believe the suspect, later identified as Kenron Laing, had attempted to enter the home after tracking the phone to the couple’s northern Owen County residence.

In total, two discarded iPhones would be discovered at the scene. The first was located in a gravel area, the probable cause affidavit indicates, approximately 15 to 20 feet east of the victim’s body. Identified as a black iPhone housed in a clear case, the phone appeared to authorities to have been “wiped” or factory reset. Although the screen read “The iPhone has been locked,” an associated Gmail account would reportedly help police determine the phone belonged to Laing.

According to the probable cause affidavit, authorities with the ISP Cyber Crimes Unit were able to uncover identifying information from the phone which was used to gather subscriber information and records from both Apple and AT&T. The subscriber of the phone and associated service, authorities would discover, was listed as “Mr. Kenron Laing.”

The second phone, described as a dark-colored iPhone housed in an orange, clear case was recovered by authorities after it was spotted by Pocasangre after she had moved Salinas’ truck from where it had been parked in the couple’s driveway. This was the same phone, Pocasangre advised authorities, that Salinas brought home with him that day, along with the bag in which it had been found. Salinas had shown her the phone and its case, the probable cause affidavit recounts, while the two of them had been standing in the driveway.

Following the discovery, the victim’s wife reportedly advised police how she felt the phone had possibly “been tracked” by the individual who ultimately killed her husband.

The culminating investigation led authorities to conclude both phones belonged to Laing, the probable cause affidavit details, with police making the connection through verified phone numbers and email addresses.

Murder weapon

Through a series of interviews and surveillance video, authorities were also able to determine that Laing had been staying at the Indianapolis-area motel with his sister, identified in the probable cause affidavit as Kennisha Laing, then age 20. Police later applied for and were granted a search warrant for the AT&T cell phone records associated with Kennisha’s phone, discovering that it too had traveled a similar path as Kenron Laing’s cell phone from the motel to the area of the crime scene on the date and time of the murder.

The investigation would ultimately take an even deadlier turn when on July 28, 2023, authorities learned Kennisha Laing had been booked into jail in Cook County, Illinois on charges of first-degree murder.

According to the probable cause affidavit filed in the case against her brother, Kenron, Kennisha Laing reportedly shot and killed a 16-year-old juvenile female at a hotel in South Holland, Illinois, before barricading herself in the room and eventually being arrested.

Once in police custody, authorities say she described the revolver handgun she used in the crime, identified as a Taurus model 856 “38 Special +P,” as belonging to her brother, Kenron Laing.

Two fired bullets collected from the many fired by the Illinois State Police Laboratory during their investigation of the firearm were later requested and obtained by local authorities. Those bullets, the probable cause affidavit advises, were tested by the Indiana State Police Evansville Laboratory for comparison against a bullet retrieved from the spine of Salinas during an autopsy conducted on Nov. 4, 2022 at Terre Haute Regional Hospital.

The test, authorities say, identified the two items as having been “fired in the same firearm.”

The case remains under investigation, and Owen County Prosecutor Benjamin Kim has issued a reminder that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Last month, the Owen County Board of Commissioners voted to approve the same contract for county attorney services – almost.

At the first meeting of the month, Board President Gary Burton brought the topic up, as the current contract ends at the end of 2024.

“We cannot go into a new business year with no county counsel, and I mean that by a county attorney,” Burton said, acknowledging that there would be new commissioners on the board. “We cannot start a new year without legal counsel for reorganization.”

Except that’s not true.

Despite it being common sense and best practice, Indiana law doesn’t require that county commissioners have an attorney. Rather, Indiana Code 36-2-2-30 states, “The executive may employ and fix the compensation of an attorney to represent and advise the executive.”

It provides the same for county councils in Indiana Code 36-2-3-10.

Burton continued.

“With that being said, it is a two-year agreement, same as it’s been for the last several years. The pay rate is the same for 2025,” he said. “There is a 2026, five percent increase which would be discussed at budget hearings. Other than that the agreement is the same as it was when we signed this to bring Dana [Kerr, the current county attorney] on.”

Except it wasn’t.

The new contract provided a clause requiring payment for the remainder of the year’s annual fee, or $160,000, if the contract is terminated by the county. This includes if the two incoming commissioners, Sam Hobbs and David Risk, take official action to terminate the contract at the initial January meeting. The two newcomers would have a 2-1 majority over the only incumbent commissioner, Burton.

“The County recognizes that Attorney has given up the vast majority of his clients to serve the County and that, as a solo practitioner, Attorney will need sufficient time to rebuild the Attorney’s practice,” the contract reads. “Therefore, the annual fee is determined to be earned on the first day of the year and any termination by the County that becomes effective before the expiration of this agreement, County shall pay any balance due on the annual fee.”

“I don’t feel that it’s my responsibility to determine who is going to be counsel in the future,” current commissioner Joel Lowe said, acknowledging that the board needed counsel at the start of the year.

Commissioner Bob Curry moved to approve the contract, and Lowe seconded the motion. The motion passed 2-1, with Lowe abstaining.

Except that wasn’t the end.

At their next meeting two weeks later, the topic came up again following comments and questions from citizen Allan McBride.

Lowe clarified why he abstained.

“This is based on my opinion, my thoughts and my feelings, not personal. I didn’t feel it was the business of the two commissioners leaving the position to have any say as to who was going to represent [the Board of Commissioners] into the new administration,” Lowe said before adding, “I personally looked at the contracts, and they were stated as being the same as last year. They were not the same.”

Lowe held up copies of the contract.

He added that he had “issues with the way that our county attorney has conducted business with the county.”

“I believe that our attorney was placed in positions that he didn't need to be placed into, morally and ethically,” Lowe said.

Lowe claimed that he had shared with Curry and Burton that he was not on board with the contract.

“I’m an individual commissioner. I’m allowed to think and respond how I see fit. That’s why I abstained,” he said.

Except Lowe’s actions inadvertently and unintentionally halted the contract, possibly making it null and void.

Lowe signed the contract “when I should not have in confusion,” he said.

“I didn't list my signature as a nay, yay or abstained. I signed it. Owen County Auditor Sheila Reeves will not attest that contract. She’s told me so. The document’s no good,” Lowe said. “These gentlemen have the right to bring forth a new contract, most certainly they will. But I don't stand on the fact that I have any business dictating who is going to be the attorney for the new incoming executive body. It’s not my place. “

He continued.

“I was misled to believe that we have to have an attorney, or that the board of commissioners of Owen County have to have an attorney present the first day, the first meeting. I have yet to find any, and Dana, you're welcome to provide it to me if you've got it, any legal documentation, saying anything of that sort. I was misled to believe that.”

Hobbs said that he “isn’t there to run anyone out,” but affirmed that it is something that should be addressed with the new board.

“I’ve spoken to you,” Lowe said. “I’ve talked about an easy transition. My thoughts, [on] how I wanted to see the rest of the year go was to deal with the on-hand emergencies and daily business. I surely didn't need to see or anticipate ordinances, resolutions, contracts shoved through.”

Lowe also pointed to the potential conflict of interest created by Kerr writing a new contract that pertains to his legal services.

Curry stated that he thought that Lowe agreed with the contract.

Burton said that a 30-day extension of the current contract that is set to expire at the end of December is feasible. He added that in the six years he has served on the board, there has been three different sets of commissioners.

“Whatever contracts were in place never got changed, they just rolled over,” Burton said. “Now if you want to make that decision once the new board is established, that makes sense, but I don’t know that it’s good sense not to have an attorney because everything we do here, [there] could be legal ramifications if the wrong decision is made.”

Lowe then added how he hopes the next board will address the matter.

“I want to make sure that Mr. Kerr has the appropriate time to establish himself,” Lowe said. “And I'm just going to say it’s poor human behavior to throw somebody onto the street so I think that’s a serious consideration. I would hate to be sitting here and asked to leave a job with no pay, no benefits… We don't just throw people out on the street.”

Hobbs pointed out that there is a current contract, which has a 30-day notice provided to terminate it.

Burton said they would honor the old contract.

“I’ll be honest with you, It sounds to me like you're saying there's a lot of dishonesty and…” McBride began before being interrupted by all three commissioners who spoke over one another.

“Listen…” Lowe started.

“No,” Curry said.

“There’s been none, zero,” Burton said.

Except when the contract was presented, it was said that it was the same as the previous contract, aside from a possible rate increase for 2026.

Hobbs asked the board to clarify that they are rescinding the contract and extending the current contract for 30 days.

Ultimately, the board unanimously rescinded the new contract, which Lowe said he believes is null and void because Reeves will not attest to it with his signature.

With entry lines nearly reaching the back door of Owen Valley High School, approximately 400 concerned citizens packed the OVHS Auditorium and provided two hours worth of comment concerning the draft Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) set before the Owen County Plan Commission.

A UDO is a local policy instrument that combines zoning, subdivision and other regulations into a single document.

More than 25 individuals signed up to provide public comment, at the Oct. 22 meeting, with each comment being against the UDO in general or the current draft of the document.

The meeting followed an Oct. 6 open house held at the Owen County Courthouse.

“This UDO document that we have before us is a draft. I don’t know if that was ever made clear to everyone, but a draft is a document that’s in progress, and we will edit it as needed,” Plan Commission President Norm Warner said. “We already have planning and zoning. It was implemented in 2002. I don’t know how many folks knew that this UDO is an update to those documents. There are parts of the UDO that bring us into compliance with state statute. The rest can be changed to fit our needs.”

Warner continued providing background information at the start of the meeting.

“The only way the zoning on your property can be changed is if you come to the planning commission and you ask for it to be changed. These documents don’t do any of that,” he said.

He noted that the plan commission is an advisory board. As such, the commission can choose to make a favorable, unfavorable or no recommendation before the matter goes to the county commissioners.

“No one on the steering committee or the planning commission sitting up here wrote a single word of this document. This was done by a consultant with input from the steering committee. The problem with that is due to the times of the meetings, which was right in the center of the day, I work a job, and most of the people up here do as well. I made three out of 10 meetings,” Warner said. “No decision on this thing will be made tonight or any time in the near future by this commission, until we have time to go through it [and] document [changes] chapter by chapter.”

He added,  “What we do not want to do is get in a hurry here at the end and get stuff that we do not want.”

He proposed creating a subcommittee or steering committee set by the Plan Commission to act as a working group to review and edit the draft UDO.

“And if it takes a year, it takes a year. If it takes 16 or 18 months, it takes 16 or 18 months. There is no hurry. So if you think we’re going to shove it through, that’s not the case. Won’t let it happen, not as long as I’m sitting here anyway,” Warner said.

Plan Commission member Bill Purcell shared the attendance of the various steering committee members for the UDO and pointed out again that the meetings were held during the middle of the day.

“Please be kind to those people because they were doing their best,” Purcell said.

It was determined that Purcell would chair the subcommittee.

Warner began the public comment period by reading a statement from former sheriff and commissioner-elect Sam Hobbs.

“To the people of Owen County, as your commissioner-elect for 2025, I encourage everyone to just take a deep breath and relax,” Warner read on Hobbs’ behalf. “I believe we need to regroup and sit down with the people of Owen County to establish what is in the best interest of the people of Owen County. The draft needs to be dissected, and we, the people need to address each and every chapter slowly and take as much time as needed to establish what’s best for the citizens of Owen County… I will not, as your commissioner-elect, move forward with this current draft until it is meticulously and thoroughly examined and resolved.”

Members of the public had up to three minutes to speak.

Several of the initial comments centered around not wanting a UDO at all, and many of the comments criticized the Plan Commission.

“The planning and zoning board here, they are not your punching bag for today. They were handed this by another entity. It is not them that this stuff is for. It’s not them that will approve it. They are here to make adjustments for it and send it to the commissioners for approval or denial. It’s your commissioners that you need to be in an uproar with,” County Council candidate Joe Frye said. “If we send something back, and we say we don’t want it, then what you’re going to get is what’s already there. So we’ve got to comb through it. We’ve got to fix it.”

One member of the public requested that footnotes are included to indicate what the changes are, what the previous zoning law dictated and whether or not it is based on state statute.

Commissioner candidate William Jennings also spoke. He said that the UDO would never pass with him on the board.

“I call this meeting adjourned. I think we ought to adjourn because 90 percent of the people here do not want it,” he said, recommending that the Plan Commission vote to not recommend the UDO that night.

County Council President Polly Chesser, who is seeking re-election this year, spoke up from the audience.

“You do not want this going to the commissioners right now. I promise you, because they don't have to take [the Plan Commission’s] recommendation. If they sent this to the commissioners right now, the current commissioners that are sitting on there, I guarantee would pass this, disregarding whatever they said,” Chesser said. “What they’re doing, slowing it down until after the first of the year is exactly what needs to be done.”

Resident Will Daubenspeck spoke about the UDO, citing the potential for growth both along the I-70 corridor and State Road 46. He said he experienced the creation of a UDO in Hamilton County years ago and that it was part of why he moved to Owen County in the first place.

“This is your chance to make a stand properly to protect yourself,” he said. “If you don’t put the right things in this UDO, you’re gong to be wishing you would’ve… Everyone’s wanting to fight against it. These people up here will help you put in what needs to be put into it to protect yourself and your property. So this meeting should be more about things that you don’t want in it versus we don’t want a UDO. I’m telling you, I’ve seen it with my own eyes. I’ve lived it. That’s the reason I moved to Owen County…I don’t think those people standing up there really want to be talking about this right now, but I’m going to tell you, if you don’t put regulation in to control growth, you will be sorry. I’ve seen it.”

Resident Chris Carey also spoke on the matter.

“What we really need to keep in mind, I know you guys don’t have any power to really do anything, except for the commissioner [Bob Curry who sits on the plan commission], and the other commissioners and whoever else is involved with bringing this in and sticking it in our laps, if they’re not going to show up and allow us to voice our opinions, we need to take it to them,” he said. “Find their addresses, their phone numbers, their emails and just light it up and tell them what we think, and don’t let up. I mean, we need these people to understand this is our county, they work for us, they’re our employees, and we can’t just go making these decisions willy-nilly.”

Commissioner candidate Dave Risk also spoke on the matter. He commented on the Enabling Act and what is and is not legally required of the county.

“There’s a structure already in place in Indiana code for ordinances,” he said. “I have verified we are not required to have a UDO in Owen County.”

He added, “The purpose of a UDO is to combine the various series of local ordinances into one document.”

Chesser then took her three minutes to speak.

“These people have nothing to do with getting this done under the radar. It was not them. They’re doing exactly what they need to be doing. They’re slowing this down until we get our new commissioners in because like I was trying to say, if they pass this right now… and said no we don’t want this, the commissioners can still say, ‘We don’t care what you say. We want it anyway.’ So the fact that they are slowing this down and getting your input and listening to all of you, that’s what needs to be done. That’s what should have been done in the first place,” Chesser said.

She added that the steering committee was filled with good people but that the daytime meetings meant they were not always there and understandably so.

“Those people on the committee are going to listen to their neighbors, they’re going to take out the crap, and they’re going to protect you. So the fact that they're doing it this way is awesome, and that’s the way it should have been done,” Chesser said before encouraging people to stay engaged both with this issue and other county government matters.

The Plan Commission will meet again at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 19. Warner said that the OVHS auditorium would not be available but that he would look into reserving space at Owen Valley Middle School.

‍

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.

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.