Redevelopment commission approves Padgett Commons EDA with New City Development 4-1 after lengthy debate over road costs and utility relocation

The Whitestown Redevelopment Commission voted 4–1 to approve Resolution 2025‑01, authorizing an economic development agreement (EDA) with New City Development LLC for the Padgett Commons project, a mixed‑use proposal on roughly 40 acres that the developer said would include retail, multifamily and senior housing along with new public roads and three roundabouts.

Isaac Bambourche, founder and CEO of New City Development, described the proposal and the proposed infrastructure the developer would build. Bambourche said the company’s plan would convert roughly 40 acres of farmland into a mixed‑use gateway with roughly 200,000–250,000 square feet of retail distributed across the site, multifamily housing and senior units, and a roughly $110 million project value with an assessed value increase the developer estimated at about $41 million. He told the RDC New City had allocated about $27.2 million toward exterior infrastructure (including roadwork and utility work) and would take on cost‑overrun risk for the infrastructure scope described in the EDA.

Bambourche described three roundabouts and about 4,900 linear feet of new roads; he said the firm had experience delivering similar work, citing recent projects such as Hop Station in Plainfield and a reuse in Fishers.

Commissioners, the town engineer and outside consultants pressed the developer on schedule and utility relocation risk. Town engineer Shree (first name in transcript only) and Mike McBride, vice president at American StructurePoint, explained that utility relocation — notably transmission‑line work cited by Duke Energy — can be time consuming and has led to long lead times for poles and materials. McBride said preliminary coordination suggested Duke would need roughly 12 months to get material, plus additional months for design and relocation, and that the town’s design and the utility schedules combined could make the northern portion of the exterior road take up to about two years from a design start to pole relocation and completion. McBride also said the town’s preliminary estimate included additional costs for inspection, testing and utility relocation that were not in the developer’s infrastructure subtotal, and he suggested $2–3 million or more could be needed for relocations and testing beyond the developer‑provided exterior cost assumptions.

Several residents and landowners spoke during public comment. Karen Padgett, the landowner of the site, urged prompt approval and said the new road was necessary for property access and for relieving local traffic congestion. Craig Anderson, who represented Padgett in the room and who has long worked on development in the area, urged commission approval and described prior marketing challenges tied to infrastructure. Ken Kinsale raised procedural concerns about who negotiated the EDA for the town and urged engineering staff be involved.

Commission and legal staff discussed completion‑guarantee language and the EDA’s relationship to other agreements the project will require, including a public‑private agreement (PPA), minimum taxpayer agreement (MTA) and bond/BOT documents. Counsel and developer representatives said the council had already approved related terms and that language to make completion guarantees cover the full project had been requested and could be inserted as a non‑substantive addendum if necessary.

After debate the RDC approved the resolution. The commission’s motion passed with four votes in favor and one opposed; the meeting record did not list each member’s vote by name. The RDC noted further steps remain, including execution of a BOT/bond agreement and the MTA to govern tax guarantees and draws on bond proceeds. Several commissioners stressed that the RDC’s role is to fund approved infrastructure and that final procurement and permitting steps remain.

The EDA as discussed allocates infrastructure responsibilities and limits town obligations: New City will undertake exterior road construction (subject to building and technical standards) and bear overrun risk except where delays or costs are the town’s fault. The agreement contemplates the developer will not be able to draw on RDC bond proceeds for interior site work until exterior roads and required public improvements are completed.

Outcome: Resolution 2025‑01 approving the EDA with New City Development was approved by the Whitestown Redevelopment Commission, 4–1. Further contractual steps (MTA, BOT/bond documents, PPA) remain before vertical construction proceeds.