Sunbury Council Adds Woodland Lake Property to New Community Authority, Approves Related Infrastructure Agreements

The Sunbury City Council on Aug. 6 voted to add Woodland Lake property to the Sunbury New Community Authority and approved agreements intended to enable bond financing for public infrastructure improvements.

The council passed two related resolutions, including one authorizing agreements and instruments tied to Woodland Lake and another approving the application to add the property to the New Community Authority. Both measures were approved following motions to suspend the rules and passed on roll calls with seven yeas.

The action follows a public hearing in which Jonathan Wilcox, of Wilcox Communities, told the council the developer is working with the county finance authority to issue bonds and plans “to do about $7,000,000 [in] public road improvement to extend forward” to serve the development and adjacent commercial acreage. Wilcox said the financing is moving quickly and that the developer is “hoping to close on the bonds this month.”

City law director David Bream placed required exhibits into the record for the hearing, including the notice of public hearing, proof of publication, the application and map of the additional property, and a supplemental declaration. The council accepted the exhibits before taking testimony.

City Administrator Daryl Hennessy told council that, beginning with next year’s tax cycle, the city will levy a charge on properties in the New Community Authority to begin generating revenue to reimburse some administrative expenses and support infrastructure work around the interchange, the parkway and Fort Winds Drive.

The council’s votes were recorded as unanimous among members present; the formal roll calls showed seven votes in favor. The measures referenced Resolution 2025.21 (approving agreements and instruments related to Woodland Lake) and Resolution 2025.22 (approving the application to add property to the Sunbury New Community Authority). Council minutes indicate the votes occurred after the public hearing and after the required exhibits were entered into the record.

No ordinance was adopted at the meeting to create or levy a tax increment mechanism; a separate ordinance concerning tax increment equivalents and exemption from taxation was tabled because the school‑district notification timetable requires action at a later meeting.

The council’s approval allows the developer and the county finance authority to proceed with the bond process and sets the administrative steps for the city to begin collecting related charges next year. Further specifics about bond terms, a final project budget, construction schedule for Fort Winds Drive, and exact revenue projections were not specified at the meeting.

Council members did not raise amendments to the resolutions at the meeting. The record shows no formal challenges or votes against the motions; legal exhibits were entered and sworn testimony taken during the hearing.