Whitestown council selects BOT developer and advances financing steps for Padgett Commons

The Whitestown Town Council on May 14 approved the selection of a build–operate–transfer (BOT) developer for the Padgett Commons project and advanced related financing steps, including lease agreements tied to a $33 million bond package and a first reading of a $1.5 million economic development revenue bond ordinance.

The action matters because it combines developer selection, bond authorization and tax-increment financing (TIF) mechanics into a single funding package that town staff said is intended to pay project infrastructure from TIF revenues rather than a town tax levy backup.

Town staff presented the package as several linked approvals rather than independent items. A public hearing and resolution (Resolution 2025-16) authorized staff to proceed with selecting New City Development as the BOT developer; the council approved that selection by roll call vote, 5-0. Council members then approved a separate resolution ( Resolution 2025-11 ) authorizing lease agreements that would allow the Redevelopment Commission to issue debt to finance the project; staff described the $33,000,000 figure as the larger component of the redevelopment financing. The council also approved a declaratory resolution (Resolution 2025-12) to remove the Padgett Commons parcels from the Whitestown INDOT economic development and allocation area and to create a new Padgett Commons economic development area, and a companion consolidating resolution (Resolution 2025-13) combining several existing economic development areas so proceeds can be coordinated across projects. All four votes recorded were 5-0.

On the bond side, the council heard a first reading of Ordinance 2025-8, authorizing up to $1,500,000 in economic development revenue bonds for the project. Town staff said that $1.5 million piece is less restricted in its permitted uses and that the Economic Development Commission (EDC) must hold a separate public hearing on its component; staff indicated June 5 as the likely EDC hearing date but said that date had not been finalized. In describing the lease-backed portion, staff said the lease language and a proposed tax levy appear in the documents only as a safety net to improve bond pricing and that the intent is to pay debt service from TIF revenues rather than draw on the levy.

Council members and staff emphasized the multi-step process: the EDC and the Redevelopment Commission must each take separate actions before financing closes, and the bond ratings and purchaser confidence depend on the lease structure and the availability of a tax-levy backup even if it is not expected to be used. "This is 1 piece of the total funding package," one staff presenter said, explaining how the steps fit together.

The Padgett Commons items were presented as an integrated package in the packet materials, and staff answered procedural questions about sequencing and required hearings. No public speakers offered comments during the BOT public hearing.

Next steps: EDC and RDC hearings and negotiations of the BOT agreement with New City Development. Because the bond ordinance is at first reading, no final bond authorization occurred on May 14.