Town Manager Billy addressed resident concerns at the Aug. 27 St. John Town Council meeting about a proposed annexation and an associated water easement after members of the public said test wells had been drilled on the parcel and that the deed and signature pages contained apparent organizational errors.

The issue drew public comment from resident Steven Jarzombek and Jane Wallace, both of whom said public records they reviewed showed test wells completed in March and raised questions about the corporate identity of the parcel owner and the notarizations and consents used in the annexation paperwork.

Billy told the council that the town was deeded a water easement and that, if the annexation succeeds, it would incorporate the entire parcel owned by RBCP. He said the town had no knowledge of test wells before being approached for annexation and that the town is “securing the water sites for the future,” pointing to prior work to bring Wells 89 online for water production. On statutory authority, Billy cited Indiana Code 36-4-3-4, which allows annexation of noncontiguous territory under subsection 2(b) when the territory will be used to provide services to the town.

Resident Steven Jarzombek told the council he had contacted the parcel owner and reviewed public-record documents and said those records showed wells completed in March and identified different entities as owners at different times. Jarzombek said he found no registration records for an entity named RBCP in the Indiana Secretary of State database and that the chain of title included a quitclaim deed dated July 2 transferring ownership to RBCP.

Jane Wallace, who said she lives at 13001 Waverly Court, urged the council to explain why town documents appeared to list an entity that did not appear in state records and why notarizations and signature verifications were accepted without additional documentary evidence. She cited the Indiana Notary Public Guide and asked whether the town attorney and the notary followed the guide’s recommended documentary checks for an authorized representative signing for an entity. Wallace also said Will County officials had told her no entity had initiated formal development discussions with the county and that a county official had sent a cease-and-desist letter to an address associated with Paddock on Aug. 18 regarding drilling activity.

Billy told the council that the developer listed in county records consented to the annexation and granted water easement rights, and that the town does not anticipate a data center being built on that parcel. He described the parcel as planned for eventual residential development and said any future development would have to abide by town ordinances. The town manager also said the town’s actions were proactive placement of future water sites similar to earlier moves to bring other wells online.

There was no council vote on the annexation or the easement at the Aug. 27 meeting. Public commenters said they had contacted state and county officials; Jane Wallace said state Sen. Niemeyer’s staff was “tasked with studying the relevant Indiana code.” The transcript does not show any formal council direction to delay, approve or reject the annexation ordinance on Aug. 27.

The record on who signed and notarized specific consent and easement documents remains a point of contention in public comment, and residents asked the council to clarify the town attorney and notary’s review steps for entity authorizations. The council did not take formal action on the annexation at this meeting; any ordinance, consent or annexation timeline would appear in future agenda materials if submitted for council action.