CORDRY-SWEETWATER — More than 150 residents attended a conservancy district board meeting last week to express concerns about an assessment that could have all Cordry-Sweetwater property owners paying more than $900 annually for each lot they own.

Cordry-Sweetwater property owners pay county taxes as well as special assessments for the conservancy district.

On Aug. 18, the board approved the first reading of a resolution to change the way it collects the conservancy district’s assessment. Going forward, it would not be based on the value of each parcel, but would be one flat rate — as much as $972 — no matter how much each property was worth.

The Sept. 15 public hearing was the first of two. The second public hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 20 before the start of the board’s monthly meeting at the clubhouse.

[sc:text-divider text-divider-title=”Story continues below gallery” ]

The board will have a brief special meeting this Thursday, Sept. 24 at the conservancy district office at 7 p.m. to talk about the proposed assessment, then move on to a discussion about a proposed water rate increase at 7:30 p.m.

“We have a whole other month of time to express ideas, express concerns and those kinds of things, so please help us with that,” said board chairman Herbie Benshoof.

If the resolution is adopted, each freehold — each lot in the district — would be assessed at the $972 rate as of Jan. 1, 2021. Owners would pay that in two installments in May and November next year.

If a person owns two lots that are adjacent to each other, the lots would be considered two freeholds, according to an FAQ document given to owners. The assessment taking place next year would give owners time to “marry” multiple lots if they own more than one.

Cordry-Sweetwater resident Frank Allen owns seven lots. Because three of those lots are not married, he could possibly end up paying $4,000 annually when assessed.

“Why should I pay $4,000 when a fella on the lake with a $1 million home … only pays $900?” he asked the board.

The conservation district’s attorney, Roger Young, told Allen to hold off on trying to marry his lots because the board is still trying finalize the definition of “freehold” when it comes to assessment.

Young explained earlier in the hearing that the board was within its limits to define what a freehold as it relates to assessment, including defining it as multiple lots that are next to each other, but have never been married.

“There are several different ways the board could define freehold for assessment purposes, but I am not sure that decision has been made yet. It will be informed by what the board hears this evening,” he said.

Why the change?

At the start of the meeting, board member Pat Sherman explained that the reasoning for the assessment increase was due to a disparity in the collection process which has become worse over the past few years.

“The assessed values of properties, they just are not consistent. Some properties that sell get assessed values raised immediately and other properties of like value never change,” he said.

Sherman said that a property recently sold for around $775,000, but the assessed value for that property was $238,000.

“Since our current assessment is based on net assessed value, we have a disparity among freeholders in our community from about $20 a year to well over $4,000 a year. That is difficult to justify under any circumstance,” he said.

“I think this process is what we’re trying to do to make certain we can address that, come up with a process and move forward.”

The $972 assessment is an estimate and was figured using the costs associated with maintaining and operating the district’s “works of improvement,” which include roads, security, and taking care of the lakes and nature and recreation areas there.

That costs were then divided by the number of freeholds in the district to determine the amount, according to the FAQs.

But at the public hearing, Sherman said that the number of freeholds, or lots, given initially to do the estimate was not correct.

“We don’t know now the number of parcels in the district. We know what the county has, but I know we have some parcels that are really just an easement. As most of you know, we have a lot of lots that have their septic system on a different lot. It may not be the adjacent lot. It may be another lot down. That has a different parcel number,” Sherman said.

“If it’s a permanent easement, it has a parcel number. Those parcels will not get charged. That is never our intent, so we have to develop the database with the help of all of you to make certain we have the right number of parcels to charge.”

Residents speak out

Craig and Elaina Deiner worked with the Cordry-Sweetwater Lot Owners Association board to collect questions about this assessment from lot owners, including those who were not CSLOA members. Craig is currently the CSLOA president. They asked 14 questions to the board at the Sept. 15 meeting.

Questions focused on the possibility of delaying the assessment another year for further study; if the board had given consideration to how this would affect lot owners on fixed incomes; how multiple lots would be assessed; improving communication; and how to know if lots are married.

“Anything can happen. We’re still talking about that, but it’s definitely something we’re going to think about,” Benshoof said when asked about delaying the decision another year.

The CSLOA and residents suggested that the board create a group made up of off-shore, on-shore and non-buildable lot owners to study the assessment proposal to come up with a plan that “is fair and equitable to everyone,” Elaina said.

Craig read a question from two lot owners who would see an assessment increase of 240 percent under the proposed resolution for their off-shore home, and then an 883 percent increase for their non-buildable lake lot.

“How can you possibly believe a person can absorb such an increase within a year, especially in the current economic environment?” Craig asked the board, to a round of applause.

Benshoof said he knows the state of the economy during the pandemic has created difficult times for everyone. “As far as absorbing it in one year, maybe there are some things there that could happen,” he said.

Another lot owner asked if the board had considered how many lot owners own non-adjoining lots — meaning they may have to pay multiple assessments — and how the $972 assessment could impact full-time residents on fixed incomes.

“We have thought about people on fixed incomes. We thought about all of the freeholders,” Benshoof said.

He added that the board was working to get better numbers to look at the impact and to help make a decision. “We care about everyone here. We’re family. We’re friends and we will take all of that into consideration,” he said.

The meeting atmosphere became more tense when Craig read a comment from one lot owner who was concerned that this change would force residents with less-valuable properties to leave.

“Taxes and fees have always been based on property values, as they should be. Changing mid-stream to save the owners of million-dollar properties will do nothing but cause those of us with lesser-valued properties to leave,” the comment read.

“We are sorry that you feel that way,” Benshoof responded.

“Everyone doesn’t have a million-dollar home. There are a lot of homes there that are there that have,” he continued, before stopping mid-sentence.

A couple men from the audience yelled back.

“That’s your answer?” one man asked. “‘Sorry, you’re too poor to live here?’”

“We’re all not millionaires,” another added.

Sherman said that living in a “beautiful area” like Cordry-Sweetwater costs money.

“It can’t be a $50 a year, it can’t be at $20 a year, it can’t be at $200 a year. We don’t get any money from Brown County, so if you don’t want to pay the tax, and I understand that, if you don’t think the tax is fair, then let’s determine what amount you do think is fair,” he said.

“If $20 is not fair, is $4,000 fair? We want to try to come to some accommodation to what everyone in this community thinks this community is worth.”

“If you think it’s worth $20, you probably don’t need to be here,” Sherman continued. “That is extremely difficult to say, but $20, do you think $20 a year is a reasonable amount to pay for your roads, for your lake, it doesn’t work.”

Elaina read one comment from a lot owner about the lack of communication to residents on the proposed resolution. Benshoof that within the last week communication had become better with text messages and alerts being sent out from the conservancy. He said that level of communication would continue.

Young told the crowd that he followed the notice requirements for budgets set forth by the state when publishing the resolution and setting up hearings about it.

“State statute does not impose any notice requirement for the imposition of assessments, so the board could legally, if you will, simply declare there will be assessment without any public notice. Obviously, the board felt that was not the way to go, so they asked me for guidance.”

One woman said she lives in Spearsville, but owns a non-buildable lot off shore. She was told about the proposed resolution and the hearing after a friend called her.

“Why you can send out this notice for a deer hunt to my house, but you can’t send out a legal notice as to why this meeting and this assessment is taking place? That’s very upsetting,” she said.

She said she was on a fixed income and cannot afford “to chuck out $1,000 at your will” because she rarely uses the amenities at the Lakes.

Another couple of lot owners had the Deiners ask the board if they had considered the impact this assessment would have on the marketability of homes and lots on the lower end of the scale. “It seems this will make high-priced homes even more attractive to prospective buyers, but less so to people looking for a more affordable property,” the comment read.

Benshoof said he had reached to real estate agents who are looking more into that so he could follow up on that question.

Attorney Alan Hux attended the meeting representing two freeholders. He argued that the board may not have the authority to define what a freeholder or freehold is because that is already defined by the state statute that creates conservancy districts.

According to Hux’s reading of the Indiana Conservancy Act, one or more tracts of land owned by one freeholder would constitute one freehold.

“In other words, if one person owned 16 lots, that is only one freehold. … He would only have one assessment. It also indicates one or more tracts of land owned by two identical freeholders constitutes one freehold. … I believe that you have wrongly informed people that a freehold is a lot and that is not, by statute, the case,” he said.

According to Hux, a conservancy district is formed for three purposes: “Providing collection and treatment of sewage and other liquid waste; providing water; and the development of parks and recreation in connection with other beneficial water management.”

He argued that the conservation district’s budgeted items are outside of those purposes, including employing a building commissioner.

“I would suggest that the board, rescind, declare void the Resolution 20-4,” Hux said.

Lot owner Keith Martin asked if the board looked into how many homes are on the lake and how many are off, along with how many full-time residents live on the lake and how many live off the lake.

“That means people who live off-water, whose values of their homes are less for sure, in most cases, are the ones who are getting the brunt of the cost, not the people who live on the lakes. They don’t care, because generally those houses cost more and they can afford it. To me, it just doesn’t seem like that was thought out very well,” he said.

Lot owner Mary Fouch asked the board members how many homes and lots they own, along with their relatives.

“I feel very strongly that this is a conflict of interest for board members to be voting on a resolution that’s going to be benefiting them while lowering their taxes, while those who don’t live on the lakes and have unbuildable lots will be paying more,” she said.

“By the next meeting, I will resubmit that same question: What do you own? What companies do you own? That property and relatives? They would all benefit.”

[sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”Conservancy residents question relationship with county” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]

Because the Cordry-Sweetwater area is a conservancy district, it is a private neighborhood. Years ago, the neighborhood had gates at the entrances.

The residents there still pay property and income taxes to the county.

During the Sept. 15 meeting about a change in lot owners’ assessments, Cordry-Sweetwater Conservancy District board member Pat Sherman said that the conservation district’s assessed value makes up about one-third of the total taxes assessed in the county.

“But what do we get? We receive no funding from Brown County,” he said.

“Those of you that are permanent residents, you pay Brown County tax, the county adjusted gross income tax, that goes to the county, and none of that comes back to your home.”

Sherman also said that the district doesn’t receive any assistance for their roads there, even though residents pay wheel and gas taxes.

“The issue I see we have with Brown County is that we don’t have this kind of crowd down in Nashville to say, ‘Why in the world are we providing one third of the revenue to Brown County and we can’t get any help with our roads?’” Sherman said.

Property taxes, however, do not fund road paving.

Some of the money to pave and maintain county roads comes from gas and excise taxes through the state. The remaining money comes from the state grant program called Community Crossings and from the wheel tax residents pay when they register vehicles in Brown County.

Last week, Brown County Highway Superintendent Mike Magner said that the roads in the Cordry-Sweetwater neighborhood are not included in the total mileage for which the county is responsible.

“What taxes they pay goes towards maintaining the ‘county’ roads that all of them travel once they leave the district,” Magner said, “same as living on any private road. You still have to drive on county and state roads to get anywhere.”

Sherman also claimed that Cordry-Sweetwater residents’ tax dollars don’t go toward financing security for the district because freeholders pay for the deputies who work in the area. “We get no assistance from Brown County other than possibly some training that our deputies receive from the sheriff,” he said.

An interlocal agreement between the Brown County Sheriff’s Office, signed in 1998, explains the security services the sheriff’s department provides the conservancy.

Sheriff Scott Southerland said last week that along with training, the sheriff’s department provides Lakes deputies with software for report writing, IT services, Verizon Wireless MiFis for internet access, and their weapons. The sheriff’s department also had been providing the deputies with laptops until the district bought their own.

The department also gives those Lakes deputies their law enforcement authority because they are deputized through the department.

Sherman said that Lakes deputies also provide mutual aid to the county when there are not many deputies on duty, but Southerland said last week that the county’s deputies also do the same for the Lakes deputies.

Property taxes which all county land owners pay — including those in Cordry-Sweetwater — also help to fund Brown County Schools, Brown County Solid Waste and the Brown County Public Library.

Paying property taxes and getting “nothing in return” troubles Sherman, he said.

“It should be troubling to every one of you. I don’t think that seems fair. I don’t think it’s fair we pay all of this money and we get nothing in return,” he said.

“We have a great community. Our CSLOA (Cordry-Sweetwater Lot Owners Association) does a great job for us in providing our library, our recreation house and the fire department does a great job. We don’t get much from Brown County.”

More local control

Cordry-Sweetwater residents have tried in the past to get more local control of their tax money.

In 1998 and 2006, there were two separate efforts to incorporate the conservation district as a way to capture state and federal tax money which the district cannot receive currently because it is not a town. Each effort was met with opposition from Lakes residents.

In 1998, a petition to incorporate was denied by the Brown County Commissioners because the project drew opposition from property owners north of the district along Nineveh Road who were to be included in the proposed annexation.

The proposed name for a new town in 1998 was Clearwater.

In 2006, another group tried to make the conservancy district a town, but a petition to incorporate was never officially filed.

A group called People Against Incorporating Nature (PAIN) was formed in 2006 to oppose the incorporation. Members believed that would create another layer of government which could result in more expenses for the district and that it would open the private lakes to the public.

At that time, it was estimated that the new town would take money from the county’s tax revenue, which could have forced higher taxes throughout the county, according to Brown County Democrat archives.

If Cordry-Sweetwater became a town, it would become the county’s largest legally recognized community with around 1,200 residents.

In 2006, it was estimated that a new town could bring in more than $430,000 in tax money to the Lakes area, but that 83 percent of that sum would be directed away from Nashville, Brown County Schools and other local taxing bodies that already exist.

[sc:pullout-text-end][sc:pullout-title pullout-title=”Water rate increase?” ][sc:pullout-text-begin]

The Cordry-Sweetwater Conservancy District is advertising a proposed water rate increase in the legal notices of this week’s paper. Read details toward the back of the B section in the Marketplace pages.

[sc:pullout-text-end]