Whitestown council approves Paget Commons economic development agreement after clarifying completion guarantee

Whitestown’s town council voted to approve an economic development agreement (EDA) for Paget Commons on March 3, 2025, with an explicit clarification that the completion guarantee described in section 3.04(c) will cover both the defined project and the additional project scope. The motion passed by voice vote, recorded as four in favor and one opposed.

The agreement commits the town to fund and construct infrastructure around the mixed‑use Paget Commons site at the intersection of County Roads 550 and 575 and contemplates financing through tax‑increment financing (TIF) bonds supported by new property tax revenue from the project and “over‑performance” in existing TIF areas. The EDA includes a taxpayer agreement that, according to the EDA exhibits discussed in the meeting, would commit approximately $1 million per year in incremental property tax payments from the core mixed‑use components. The council’s approval included the explicit amendment that the completion guarantee in 3.04(c) applies to both the project and the additional project scope.

Why it matters: Council members and residents pressed for clearer protections in the event the project is partially completed or the developer cannot finish construction, and they debated how much of the town’s existing TIF capacity would back this project. Supporters say the project and the associated roadwork will unlock development around Exit 131 and boost local tax revenue; critics warned of costs if the project stalls.

Developer and municipal advisers described the deal’s financing and protections. Nathan Fox, municipal adviser with Crown Associates, told the council that the town would issue TIF bonds supported primarily by new property tax revenues generated by Paget Commons and, if necessary, by surplus revenues from other overperforming TIF areas. Fox said that the existing parcel is currently in an INDOT‑pledged TIF area with a 50% pledge to an INDOT loan, meaning 50% of any TIF generated there will be applied to that loan until it is paid off, likely five to 10 years depending on growth.

Cam (Cam) Camasillo, a resident who addressed the council during public comment, urged careful attention to worst‑case outcomes. "Everything's fine. Trust us. Right?" Camasillo said of developer representations. He warned of a half‑built project scenario and cited a local example of a stalled hotel project as precedent.

Town legal counsel and the developer’s counsel emphasized contractual protections included in the EDA. "The completion guarantee would be a third party," said Kim (attorney with Taft), describing the guarantee as similar to what construction lenders require: a third party with assets obligated to complete the project if the developer cannot. Kim also pointed to the taxpayer agreement and said Exhibit E of the EDA illustrated a committed annual incremental tax payment of roughly $1 million per year for the covered components.

Council members and staff walked through anticipated infrastructure costs and exclusions the EDA identifies. Municipal advisers and staff listed items that would be funded through the bonds or otherwise: roughly $6,100,000 for an interior road, park and grading; approximately $2,000,000 for an additional northern roundabout; owner’s‑representative and utility relocation costs; and contingencies for unforeseen site or soil conditions. The council heard that items explicitly excluded from New City’s budget would be clarified and, if included in bond proceeds, any unused town contingency could be applied to future debt service.

The town engineer raised scheduling concerns. "I can tell you for a fact that the phase 2 will not be completed next year," said Suri, the town engineer, saying the November 2026 milestone for public infrastructure substantially complete — shown in Exhibit F — was not achievable for the northern phase because of utility relocation timelines and parcel acquisitions required for the northern roundabout. Legal counsel and the developer said the EDA contemplates force majeure for events outside the town’s or developer’s control, and that delivery of infrastructure would ultimately be the BOT (build‑operate‑transfer) developer’s responsibility under a separate procurement process.

Council members asked about the duration of the INDOT‑pledged TIF and the scale of tax revenue the developer projected. Fox said the INDOT loan pledge would remain until that loan is repaid; he estimated repayment could take seven to 10 years depending on growth. Council questions also clarified that real property tax abatements for retail projects are likely not available under state law, and that personal property abatements are treated differently.

The council’s formal action: a motion to approve the EDA with the clarification that section 3.04(c)’s completion guarantee applies to both the project and the additional project scope. The motion was made and seconded; the council recorded four ayes and one nay and the motion carried.

The EDA contains additional town protections discussed at the meeting: the taxpayer agreement (a contractual minimum incremental tax payment tied to the real property), the third‑party completion guarantee, an option allowing the town to purchase remaining undeveloped land if phases fall behind schedule, and standard force‑majeure language for third‑party delays. The council did not adopt any further amendments at the special session.

Moving forward: council members indicated the next steps would include finalizing any remaining edits to the EDA, moving forward with the RFP/RFQ process to select a BOT developer to deliver the roads and public infrastructure, and preparing bond documentation if the town proceeds with TIF bond financing. Several council members emphasized ongoing oversight and inspection obligations should the town assume responsibility for bond proceeds or for selecting a BOT developer.

Votes at a glance: The council approved the economic development agreement with the 3.04(c) clarification by voice vote; the clerk recorded four in favor and one opposed.