Resident Jennifer Bowers presses commissioners on 19.5‑acre land swap and BOT project oversight

Jennifer Bowers, a Washington County resident, told the commissioners she had reviewed past minutes and recordings and could not find a public record showing that an attorney had corrected an earlier statement about whether a public hearing was required for a property transfer. "In April 2024, there was a redevelopment commission meeting, and Todd said that he wanted to transfer 19 and a half acres at the airport to Temple And Temple," Bowers said, citing a $360,000 appraisal and a goal cited in prior meetings to place the property on the tax rolls to generate about $10,000 in annual revenue.

Commissioners and members of the public disputed the timeline and legal process. A commissioner explained that the county had previously provided matching grant money to the Board of Airworks and that, under that arrangement, the county retained an option to acquire the property at the Board of Airworks' time of choosing. "It had to go into the hands of the redevelopment commission, had to be voted on in a public meeting," the commissioner said, adding that the TIF district and redevelopment process were intended to spur private development and return property to the tax rolls.

Bowers asked specifically why a land transfer worth roughly $360,000 (later described in public comments as expanded to about $409,000) was tied to a BOT project that, she said, "didn't start until 2025." She also sought details about a clause in the BOT agreement stating the county "will reimburse the developer for the payment and performance bonds pursuant to agreement separately above and beyond the total budget," asking whether it was normal for the county to cover developer performance bonds. The commissioner said he did not know the bond amount but that staff could find out and report back.

At the hearing, speakers raised wider concerns about project oversight. Multiple participants said standard construction inspections and pay‑estimate procedures appeared not to have been consistently applied on the BOT project, and that an independent construction manager or inspector might have changed outcomes. One participant said the original project bid had been $5.3 million and that the council later approved $4.8 million, while public comments referenced various numbers in the record. Commissioners acknowledged the range of figures and urged review of the public record and contract documents.

Several speakers called for an independent audit of the BOT project. The council discussed whether to reauthorize a previously discussed independent audit and the scope that outside auditors would examine. A commissioner said the council intends to hire professionals and would not attempt to direct the auditors' method so the review could remain independent. "They are the professionals. They are the ones that will determine what parts they look at and how that goes," the commissioner said.

The meeting record shows the council agreed to move forward with routine business and to supply requested documents for review; commissioners also noted that an amendment relating to the transfer was presented and voted on in open session. The board did not make a final substantive decision on remedying past actions during the meeting beyond the promise to hire or enable an independent professional review and to provide records to the auditors.

The board listed the 19.5‑acre transfer and related contract amendments among documents it would make available to the auditors; the timing and results of that independent review were described as pending a future council vote and the hiring of outside professionals.