Supporters of Gary and Sheila Oliver packed the Aug. 16 commissioners meeting to discuss a topic that wasn’t on the agenda: placement of the Salt Creek Trail on the Olivers’ property.
Supporters lined up to ask the commissioners to consider changing the route of the trail or to stop the threat of eminent domain.
This was the fourth time Gary Oliver had approached the commissioners about preventing a historic bridge from being placed within view of his dining room window.
Commissioner Dave Anderson told Oliver that the board couldn’t discuss it with him since the couple had submitted a counteroffer to the Indiana Department of Transportation for the use of their property.
“That was before we knew where it was going. Make a motion and eliminate eminent domain,” Oliver said as the room filled with applause.
Oliver said the couple had not accepted any offer.
Commissioner Diana Biddle again told the couple that the county has limited ability to change this part of the trail plan. Plans for a trail to connect Brown County State Park with downtown Nashville and possibly Deer Run Park have been in the works since the early 2000s.
“This is not the Salt Creek Trail Committee. This is INDOT taking over a portion of this trail,” she said. “If you look on the plans, it says that section of the trail is an INDOT-controlled project.”
Oliver said INDOT had told him the local commissioners could stop the bridge placement at any time. “They say you can pull the plug and it’s over and everybody walks away,” he said.
But Biddle said walking away would require the county to pay back money spent so far in engineering costs and land acquisition. There’s also a liquidated damages clause in the agreement the county commissioners signed to move a Clay County bridge here for the trail.
The trail projects were approved by previous commissioners, she said. “We are bound. It’s not us doing it,” Biddle said.
Auditor Beth Mulry asked how much it would cost if the county decided not to go forward with the bridge project. Brown County Highway Superintendent Mike Magner, who’s on the trail committee, said it would cost the county to get out of the project, and then additional money to build a replacement bridge, which has not been budgeted.
Local resident Ken Birkemeier said that eminent domain must only be used when necessary and in good faith. “It is not a necessity that they put this giant, the biggest bridge in the county, in their front yard.”
Birkemeier, a former banker, said he has done construction loans for 30 years, and he thought the documents the Olivers were given were difficult to understand.
“I have seen a lot of real estate transactions, and I respect what you’re saying about there’s an offer on the table and you’re limited,” he told the commissioners. “But that deed is made out to you, and all you’ve got to do is say, ‘We won’t accept this deed. We will not through eminent domain,” Birkemeier said, to a room full of applause.
Magner said the reason the deed was made out to the commissioners is because INDOT changed the process. Previously, the state required right-of-way to do a project and then it was transferred back to the county commissioners for future maintenance. He said the change of deeding land directly to the commissioners was done “to save a paperwork step” and save state taxpayer dollars since INDOT had to pay for the deed change.
Doug Cauble was involved with the trail committee in 2007. He said he remembered walking the proposed trail routes with engineers. A wetland which was disturbed to build the first phase of the trail was mitigated to the area of Salt Creek by State Road 46 East. That’s where the Olivers would like to see the bridge going instead of in a corner of their yard.
“That (wetland mitigation) can be moved. That can mitigated somewhere else,” Cauble said. “The bridge — love it or leave it — could be located in a different location that may be more appropriate for homeowners and not have to involve any kind of condemnation.”
The commissioners talked about needing to set a meeting with INDOT.
Resident Marilyn Rudd asked the commissioners to include the Salt Creek Trail Committee in any further discussions. “You should get with them, get the paperwork and they should come out and tell what they are doing,” she said.
After looking at a photo of the proposed bridge — which will be cut in half and used on two sections of the trail — Commissioner Jerry Pittman said he doesn’t think the bridges fit Brown County.
“It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me; however, I think we as commissioners need to explore every option. I think we need to go back, examine documents, get legal advice, find out what the cost would be to abandon the river relocation, see what the cost would be for an alternative bridge, possibly,” he said.
“The Olivers here are directly affected by this, but everyone in this room is affected by this because you are all taxpayers of Brown County. I don’t know if we can go back and reverse decisions that have been made in the past without certain consequences. I think we need to know what those consequences are before we make a decision.”
TRAIL COMMITTEE MEETING
