Commissioners discuss BOT land swap and the council's audit committee
- Nathaniel Smith | Editor-in-Chief
- Jun 18
- 12 min read
The June 16 commissioners meeting saw more discussion regarding the BOT audit committee, 19.5 acre property transfer to Temple & Temple, and READI grants. It would have been a quick meeting compared to most, but Jennifer Bowers and Lucy Brenton both shared a full hour of speaking time during the public comment section. As per usual, the meeting began with said public comment section following the Pledge of Allegiance and an opening prayer.
Jennifer Bowers went first, and she inquired about the 19.5 acre property transfer, and about how Attorney Dave Umpleby had previously made a statement saying that the property transfer required a public hearing. It was explained at a previous meeting by Commissioner Todd Ewen that Umpleby misspoke, and that there was not a required public hearing for the property transfer.
Commissioner Ewen’s statement on the topic at the previous meeting on June 2, 2026 was, “There was an amendment. It's in the BOT contract. It was signed, sealed. It's done. To the original question, the copies of the appraisals are sitting back in that office. If you'd like to see them, you can see them. One of them was $380,000. The second one was $420,000… Dave Umpleby misspoke. He came back and spoke with the council attorney, and a public hearing is not required by law for a property transfer. And I believe that was stated in the June (2025) meeting the following month.”
Bowers asked about a Redevelopment Commission (RDC) meeting in April of 2024 in which Commissioner Ewen stated he, “wanted to transfer 19.5 acres at the airport to Temple & Temple.” She said the following month, Ewen valued the property at $360,000 and estimated it would generate $10,000 in annual tax revenue. Bowers stated the BOT agreement was not signed until June of 2024, and it was then expanded in October of 2025.
“How did we know in April of 2024 that we needed to transfer property to them to cover it?” she asked. “And I still can’t find where Mr. Umpleby came back and said there should not be a public hearing.”
Commissioner Phillip Marshall said he “can’t recall.” Upon asking Commissioner Ewen if he remembers, he said, “yes, I remember it all well. I thought I explained this at the last meeting. The property transfer was an amendment to the BOT contract. The actual BOT contract– the date that it was signed– is not going to be the same as an amendment that came later.”
“So, if the amendment came after the contract– the contract was signed in June 2024– how did you know in April of 2024 that you needed to transfer property to cover an amendment that had not happened yet?” asked Bowers.
Commissioner Ewen explained that this transfer was, “going to take place anyway. There are three entities involved in this. It is not just the county. The Board of Air Works Commission (Board of Aviation Commission, or BOAC), which is basically the city, owned the property. 19.5 acres. They needed money for matching grant funds back in 2017. The county provided them with approximately $160,000 to extend the runway for the new airport. At that time, the commissioners voted to give the Board of Air Works the money for grant-matching funds. In exchange for that, the county had the ability to acquire the property at their time of choosing for one dollar because we gave them grant money. But in order to do that, it had to go through the Washington County Redevelopment Commission first. If you look back at the minutes, this goes back several years. It had to go into the hands of the Redevelopment Commission. It had to be voted on in a public meeting, which it was after probably six to eight months of discussion. It was voted on unanimously to acquire the property, and then for it to be turned over to the commissioners at their time of choosing. It was a year and a half process.”
He continued, “A lot of people aren't even aware of what a TIF district is. The people around the TIF district, their parcels are designated. I own property in a TIF district. I pay taxes to fund economic development. There's one on the east side of town, the city has a couple, and then we have a small one at the airport… All this money is being accumulated for economic development, and it's available to anyone who wants to apply for major construction projects. This was set up by the state about 20 years ago… The whole goal is to take this property and have someone develop it and get it out of the hands of the government. It was the city's [property] returned to the county, and the idea is to get it on the tax rolls so it can be earning money. And by the way, I want to add that everything in your timeline was all legal. It was all done on a timely basis. It was a long drawn out deal. It took a lot of work to do it. And in the end, the taxpayers will benefit because it's going to create more tax revenue. And quite frankly, the county doesn't need 19.5 acres around the airport. We have no use for it. Someone in the private sector can use it and develop it. Once buildings go on it, or any kind of a business, that will also increase the tax revenue. That's the idea behind TIF.”
Bowers then asked her question once again, “how did you know even as far back as 2017 then that you needed–”
“Because we like to think ahead,” Ewen interjected.
Bowers asked how they knew they would be over budget, to which Commissioner Ewen stated they, “didn't even know we were going to build the Highway Department Project in 2017. These are things that have been in play long before I was sitting right here.”
Commissioner Ewen went on to explain that the county was allotted $4.8 million to use on a project of their choosing at the time of their choosing. Unsatisfied with the answer, she again asked how they knew they were going to be over budget.
“We knew two years ago we did not have enough money for the aggregate bins,” Ewen said. “The council only approved $4.8 million. We actually needed $5.2 million. We didn't have enough. Go back and look at when the $4.8 million was approved by the council. It's been almost three years now. So if you're trying to insinuate that I got the cart before the horse, that's not the way it happened. You can sit here and make all these accusations you want, but go back and look at the records.”
“But in 2024, you were asking to trade property for a project that hadn’t even been signed,” said Bowers. To which Ewen replied, “That’s right. I felt certain and confident that the Redevelopment Board was going to approve it.”
Bowers then turned her attention to the Washington County Council Members sitting among the commissioners. She said, “Is this how this works? We approve a project and we say, ‘this is the budget and this is all that the budget is,’ but then we can go around–”
Council President Brad Gilbert chimed in and stated the council approved $4.8 million. “That was the duty of the council, and that's what the council did,” Gilbert added.
Councilman Preston Shell then stated the council thought the aggregate bins were included in the original $4.8 million budget. Commissioner Ewen insisted this was not true. “That’s not correct, Preston. You know that,” he said. Shell disagreed, and Rhonda Greene interjected from the gallery, saying that she has video evidence to back up Shell’s claims.
Ewen said, “You’re wrong.”
Bowers then moved on to another question. “Page 41 of the BOT agreement states: ‘total budget for the project scope of work is $4,800,000. The county will reimburse the developer for the payment and performance bonds pursuant to agreement, separately, above and beyond the total budget.’ So my question is one, how much is that? And two, is that normal for the county to cover the bond of a developer? Isn't that their cost of doing business?”
Ewen said, I can’t answer that. I don’t know. Whatever the contract says is what we’re abiding by… but we can find out [performance bonds cost] for you.”
Bowers continued by asking about READI grants. She was curious as to what projects have been submitted to the county, and what the status is on the projects.
“The 4-H building is the only project that was initially approved, and hopefully final approval is to come on or before June 30th,” said Ewen. “We're just waiting on the State of Indiana and the IEDC to decide whether they're going to release the funds or not. But once they do, things will happen very quickly, I'm told… The announcement will come directly from the State of Indiana. They'll send an email.”
Commissioner Ewen then directed Bowers to approach Mayor Justin Green regarding her additional READI grant questions. Ewen stated Green is, “well versed on all that because he attends every single meeting. He has that list in his head.”
Next, Lucy Brenton approached to utilize her speaking time. She began by requesting a moratorium be put in place by the Plan Commission against data centers. This would act as a temporary suspension on ongoing processes, if any, to bring a data center in Washington County.
She then pivoted to “the BOT investigation committee.” Council President Brad Gilbert was quick to correct her to say they are not an investigation committee, but they are performing an independent audit.
“It was decided [in the last council meeting] that Karen [Wischmeier] and Preston [Shell] would do an independent investigation, and money was set aside for that independent investigation,” said Brenton. “Brad [Gilbert], you and I had a conversation where I actually came in opposition to the things you were saying with me. I did not agree with what you were saying because you were saying that the council would make sure the investigation happened, and there were going to be certain people on the council making sure all the boxes were checked. That is not the definition of an independent investigation.”
Gilbert interjected, “We did not set aside money for an investigation. It's an independent audit. We are not an investigative group. We're a fiscal group. And that is what we had set the $37,500 aside for… We did not do that the right way. That's why we called a special meeting for [June] 24. According to the State Board of Accounts and the Department of Local Government Finance, we did not meet the state requirement for a 14 day meeting announcement. So, that's what we did… It was a unanimous vote at the initial part, but if the council revotes to start this independent audit, we will have a decision at that point. We had Karen and Preston who sat on our body, and I know Mr. Cardwell was part of it, but prior to that meeting, the other five members did not know about the work that they had done. When they presented it, we voted unanimously to set aside that money. But the legal process starts if we do it the right way.”
Gilbert then said, assuming the council once again votes to conduct the audit, they will decide if Wischmeier and Shell will be the ones to lead the audit process, or if all seven members of the council will proceed with the process together.
Brenton responded by mentioning County Council Attorney Alyssa Cochran, stating the firm Cochran is affiliated with represents Temple & Temple in addition to the council. Brenton stated it makes her a conflict of interest.
When Gilbert assured her that Cochran would not be involved, Brenton said, “yeah, we all believe in the toothfairy, too.”
Brenton then asked Auditor Kyra Stephenson if she writes checks for the BOT because she saw where, “a notary backdated and attested to a signature in June of 2024, when she did not yet have her notary until 2025. Are you the one that wrote the checks on that? Were you aware that the notary did not even have her notary and was backdating for those checks? Because the timeline is pretty clear. She didn't have her notary and her notary number until 2025. So, there's no way that she could have signed that in 2024.”
When talking about potential people to lead the audit, she referenced an individual by the name of Brad Isaacs, a “consultant for the project,” saying Brad Gilbert informed her that the commissioners fired Isaacs. Commissioner Ewen refuted this, saying they simply did not ask him to come back. Commissioner Phillip Marshall clarified that Isaacs is still employed with the county and has not been fired. Rick Voyles, Highway Superintendent, provided further clarification, saying Isaacs is paid on an as-needed basis and not salary.
Further discussion was had regarding who would be leading the audit. Of course, no conclusion was intended to be reached during this discussion. We hope to see an answer to that question on June 24 during the special council meeting.
Commissioner Marshall then spoke for an extended amount of time as he commended the highway department workers for all they do for Washington County. Following this, he said, “I'd like to get this project done. I really would. This county needed [the highway garage] before we needed that justice center. The ambulance service has its own problems, too. We've got problems in the whole county. And if we all work together and work as hard for it as we are trying to stop it, I think we could have got it done… It's an obstacle to defeat to give the advantage to our Washington County citizens. That's all we strive for.”
Brenton then questioned why the property by the airport was swapped instead of sold on the market. Marshall explained that it is the “most porous piece of property in the county.” Brenton also questioned why they already planned to swap the land before the project was decided. She continued with her final public comment topic by discussing riparian rights. Riparian rights are a set of legal privileges that grant property owners whose land touches a body of water, such as a river, stream, or lake, the right to use and access that water. Key privileges include access for boating, swimming, and fishing, as well as the right to build docks or piers out to navigable waters.
“As data centers continue to grow in size and power demand, many operators seek to access large volumes of water for cooling systems,” Brenton said. “In areas where data centers are located adjacent to rivers or other water bodies, riparian rights can become a significant factor in determining water withdrawal permissions, regulatory compliance, environmental impact, and long term operational sustainability. Balancing the water needs of data center owners with the rights of other property owners, agricultural uses, municipalities, etc. is becoming an increasingly important issue in land use and infrastructure planning. Our duties and responsibilities to the citizens of Washington County are to anticipate problems facing the community that relate to zoning issues, to property rights and protection of the shared natural resources that are here in Washington County. So, I'm going to propose through the Plan Commission, a declaration that water is for people. Humans, animals and plants. God gave the people of Washington County the water. Like the water at John Hay, the lakes, the rivers, the streams, the creeks, all of the immense amount of water that we have under the ground makes us a hard target for data centers.”
This concluded Brenton’s time. However, Jennifer Bowers then once again came forward to the stand and asked about whether the property transfer requires a public hearing. She insisted that the transfer needs a public hearing because Dave Umpleby did not come back to a meeting to correct himself “on record.” Commissioner Ewen again, along with Attorney April Geltmaker, stated Umpleby spoke with the commissioners over the phone to correct himself. Ewen commented that Umpleby charges $400-$500 per hour, “so we didn't think that would probably be a wise use of taxpayer money for him to come back and say a public hearing is not required when he informed us such. So, it's over. Okay? Why are you beating a dead horse?”
“Because of what's on the record. On June 2, whenever I asked about that, you told me to look at the other meetings and that he came back and said he misspoke. And now that I did what you asked me to do, and I can't find that, you're telling me it was in a private meeting, and that we're not privy to that.”
Geltmaker informed Bowers that she is indeed not privy to attorney-client communications.
This dispute continued for several more minutes. Bowers and Ewen continuously went back and forth in circular conversation, with Bowers asking about the land swap and Ewen repeatedly telling her she had her time to speak earlier in the meeting and that she was no longer allowed to do so. Bowers refused to return to her seat, and the two proceeded to speak over each other until Bowers said, “I would like to respectfully ask if the council's independent audit will include an audit of the 19.5 acre property transfer?"
Council President Brad Gilbert explained that the audit will be conducted, “in the manner of the professionals that get hired to do the audit, and the problems that came up with the Indiana State Board of Accounts. I can't promise anything based on the fact that I'm not the one that's going to be doing the audit. We are a seven member council, and we will ask an independent group to do this. They are professionals. They are the ones that will determine what parts they look at and how that goes. It is not for us to tell them how to do the audit or it wouldn't be independent.”
Then, the commissioners approved the minutes from the previous meeting, as well as claims and payroll. The minutes were approved 2-1 with Commissioner Tony Cardwell voting against. There was a brief discussion about changing the claims approval process. Commissioner Cardwell suggested they approve each individual department as well as list the claim amounts in the meeting minutes. Commissioner Todd Ewen argued that is unnecessary because the claims are already public record.
After a brief update from Rick Voyles regarding Fair Week preparations and a paving project on North Highland Road in front of the dump starting on Monday, the meeting came to a close.
Comments