Logan County public hearing surfaces questions over park appraisal, financing plan

Logan County Fiscal Court held a public hearing on its plan to finance a proposed county park, and residents used the forum to press for clearer appraisal details, a written project cost analysis and assurances taxes will not rise to pay future development and maintenance costs.

County Judge Thomas Baker opened the hearing by explaining the county purchased a parcel for the park and has been saving toward a down payment for several years. Baker told the court the state has offered a $3 million appropriation earmarked for parks, and the county plans to take advantage of a seven-year, interest-free payment option that would spread the remaining balance. Baker said the county has saved roughly $1.7 million and that, after the state money and the down payment, the remaining financed balance would be roughly $1.6 million.

Residents who spoke at the hearing questioned two independent appraisals for the property that produced materially different values. Farmer and resident Jonathan Headley noted the appraisals used comparables from outside Logan County and said the two appraisal values — one he described as roughly $1.4 million and the other about $3.6 million — were inconsistent enough to raise a red flag. “How can you compare ground inside our county to properties outside the county?” Headley asked.

Other speakers sought more detail about the development timeline and long-term maintenance costs. Pat Bail and Richard Ewald, among others, asked for a project cost analysis and a draft master plan before the county incurs additional development expenses. Dale Gibbons said he had surveyed his Chandler—hapel neighbors and found little local support for the scale of the park proposed; others voiced concern about scheduling public meetings during business hours and asked for evening sessions so more residents can attend.

Baker and other court members said the park initiative began after community input and a study commissioned from Western Kentucky University roughly six years ago. Baker said the court advertised for potential parcels and received multiple offers; he said the court asked the appraisers for second opinions after the first appraisal returned a value lower than a prior public sale price. He emphasized that the state grant was unsolicited and that taking the state—unding while using the county own payment preserves interest income the county can use for initial development.

County officials said they expect to have a schematic master plan and initial cost estimates from architects within about 45 to 60 days. That document will be presented to the public at an evening meeting and will include options and estimated costs so the court and residents can prioritize low-cost, near-term improvements and phase larger features.

Court action at the meeting was procedural: the court acknowledged the public hearing by motion and roll call. No development contracts or design approvals were adopted at the session.

County leaders said the park is expected to be built in phases if approved and that the architect eliverable will be the basis for formal engineering estimates and bids before the court commits to further expenditures.

Residents and some magistrates urged the court to provide an independent third appraisal and to make draft engineering and maintenance-cost documents available before the next financing decision. Baker said the court was open to additional appraisal review and reiterated that the county would present the architects nswers and estimated scope at a public evening meeting when the documents are ready.

Court members and some residents acknowledged strong, differing opinions in the community. The court scheduled follow-up public engagement once the master plan and cost estimates are complete, and Baker asked residents to submit written questions so the court can address them at the next session.