After initially voting in May to sell land for $1 to the Brown County Regional Sewer District for a wastewater treatment plant, the Brown County Parks and Recreation Board has voted to go back on the offer for now.

The board voted to rescind the initial vote at the July 17 board meeting. Member John Kennard abstained from voting. He also works for the health department.

Board President Jim Hahn said that the letter parks and rec had received from Ladd Engineering on behalf of BCRSD was “non-friendly” and that it was a directive on how to take the park land for the wastewater treatment plant, “which is not a really good way to create a friendship, but that’s what they did,” Hahn said.

Hahn made a motion to rescind the May vote because it was not initially on the agenda, and because board members, including himself, were not present for that meeting.

“I’m not opposed to what they’re trying to do, and I am not for it, either way. I don’t think parks and rec should take a position one way or the other. What they’re doing is sort of backing us into a corner to take a position. … I don’t think we should be making decisions related to the sewer. We don’t have any knowledge of that,” Hahn said.

“I see both advantage and disadvantage. I’m just talking about us being involved in it. I don’t like being in the center. We’ve already been in the center of something else (the logging of parks-owned land on State Road 135 North) and that hasn’t worked out so well.”

The 3.8 acres the BCRSD was seeking are at 4687 State Road 135 North. If you were driving to Nashville on 135 from Bean Blossom, the land is on the left, near where the tree line starts south of the Bean Blossom Animal Clinic.

That property is under the same deed restrictions that govern the Bean Blossom Overlook properties, which also are owned by parks and rec.

The deed states that the grantee — which was parks and rec — “shall follow selective forest management procedures by not clear-cutting the land so that the scenic beauty of the property shall be preserved; and further, that any lands in this deed within 300 feet of the center line of State Road 135 shall not have any timber removed nor manmade developments placed upon said lands.”

The acreage the BCRSD wants is part of the nearly 160 acres on both sides of State Road 135 North that were deeded to parks and rec from the Indiana Department of Transportation in the 1980s.

That property was initially deeded from a local family to parks and rec before INDOT took over. That historic deed would not allow timbering or any manmade developments on there at all.

There was an unanswered question among parks board members about how INDOT was able to get the property to deed it back to parks and rec in the 1980s.

BCRSD says

BCRSD board member Clint Studabaker attended the July 17 parks board meeting and clarified that the letter the board received was “standard boilerplate” which was required by the State Revolving Fund. That agency will help fund the building of the wastewater treatment plant in Bean Blossom.

“Eminent domain is an avenue available to a regional sewer district as part of state statute. It had to be included in a form letter like you received. It’s not our intent to pursue that,” Studebaker said about eminent domain.

He brought a map showing where the treatment plant would be built. “We know how the plant would physically fit on that property (and) how we would maintain the 300-foot easement requirement on that property from the center line of 135,” he said.

Studebaker said the property is an “ideal spot” for a wastewater treatment plant to serve Bean Blossom. “It’s out of floodplain. It’s centrally located. It’s hidden from public view by the first hill that is east of 135. It has an existing egress and ingress of the roadway that’s already there,” he said.

The BCRSD plant will have “minimal impact” on the land. The design includes “Brown County features” on the maintenance/office building that will be built there, like painting the concrete so it does not stick out in the woods, Studebaker said. It also would have a parking area.

The treatment plant itself will be a pre-engineered concrete facility, about 35 feet by 55 feet.

“We’re just not in a position to be the one to decide where to put it, and that’s what you’re asking us to do,” Hahn said.

For and against

Parks and rec board member Kara Hammes argued that providing land for a wastewater treatment plant could help address problems with failing septic systems in the area, which would ultimately affect creeks and streams there.

“It’s making an area of recreation more usable. And then also, if we’re here to serve the population of Brown County, a sewer system is something that enables more people to potentially live here and interact with the parks and rec department,” she said.

But Hammes said the offer needs to be reviewed by real estate attorney to make sure the deeds would not be violated. She voted for rescinding the offer.

Kennard said the decision made in May was intended to be reviewed by lawyers. “There’s very little opportunity that parks and rec is ever going to develop that property anyway. On the other hand, you have an offer pending to offer land to (fix) an issue that is a major issue in the northeast part of the county,” he said.

“The benefits of a sewer system far outweigh the impact on parks and rec. To me, you’re just shaking hands with the community and saying, ‘We’re doing our share to make this work for all of us.’”

Hahn said the parks department may not have plans for the property right now, but that doesn’t mean they will not have any in the future.

Resident Michael Fulton told the board he supported their vote to rescind.

“You mentioned a couple of times, with litigation pending from some activity that occurred on the parts of this property, I think you’re setting yourself up for some additional litigation and I think it would be prudent to not incur those kinds of legal costs unless it was absolutely necessary,” he said.

“I would ask that you rescind it, do the due diligence, have the legal research done so that we know what can and cannot be done with that property.”

Resident Tim Clark said the offer is an “act of desperation” on the side of BCRSD, since that board has had the power of eminent domain to get land before now. “This is not a normal decision when you’re dealing with parks and rec land for the citizens. … It’s for parks and rec; make it parks and rec,” he said.

Studebaker said if the BCRSD paid parks and rec full price for this land, the cost would be rolled into the final number that would be funded by either grants or loans and ultimately paid by sewer customers. “If that’s donated to us, then that’s just much less getting financed, which means that is much less put into the rate structure,” he said.

“This property would not have cost the taxpayers anything. That’s why they looked at it. (That) there were no plans to develop the property is another reason,” Kennard said later in the meeting.

When the parks department sends the land deeds to a lawyer to review, they will be sent to outside counsel, not Barnes and Thornburg which represents the county, Hahn said.

“I think it behooves us as a department to help enhance our county not necessarily only through recreation, but I do know that I think we need more information before I would be willing to make a decision one way or the other,” board member Linda Hobbs said.

Member Jay Sichting was not at the meeting, but had told parks and rec Director Mark Shields that he preferred at that time for the BCRSD board to look at other alternative properties before moving forward with either the donation or sale of the land on 135 North.

Board member Richard Gist made a motion to respond to the letter to say the board was not interested in donating the land at that time, but would be willing to hear the BCRSD board talk about the full project, including data about the environmental problem in the area.

Hammes seconded the motion and amended it to say the board is not willing to donate it and requests an updated offer from the BCRSD board. But prior to receiving that offer, the legal analysis on the deeds must be done at the expense of the “potential buyer” to understand what they allow.

The motion also said that the board would revisit the request at a later date after gaining an understanding of the deed and actual compensation.

Kennard abstained from the vote and it passed with four board members in favor.

“I appreciate the fact that you gave us the consideration and that you discussed this in a very reasonable way. We look forward to perhaps coming back and chatting some more,” Studabaker said.

The BCRSD pulled its request for a special exception for this land off the agenda of the July 24 zoning board meeting and had a closed meeting on July 23 to discuss the purchase of property.