Whitestown council continues review of Paget Commons economic development agreement after public questions about $27.2 million financing

The Town of Whitestown Town Council on Feb. 20 continued consideration of an economic development agreement for a mixed-use project commonly called Paget Commons after residents raised questions about bonding, guarantees and how taxpayer money would be used.

The agreement, negotiated between the Town of Whitestown, the Whitestown Redevelopment Commission, New City Development Partners LLC and Paget LLC, would support a mix of retail, senior and multifamily housing and infrastructure. Isaac (President and CEO, New City Development Partners LLC) told the council the developer is “assuming the risk for any cost overruns with regards to that $27,200,000.” Kim Sterling (Taft, town counsel) said the EDA includes a completion guarantee that “applies to the full project.”

Why it matters: The package includes about $27.2 million in financing for infrastructure, split by counsel and staff into a roughly $25.7 million tax-exempt series to fund public-eligible infrastructure and a $1.5 million taxable series for other developer-eligible costs. Citizens and council members pressed for clarity on who ultimately bears the risk, how cost savings will be split, and what oversight the town will retain.

Public concerns and developer response

Several residents spoke during the public-comment period. Ken Kingshill said the public and council had only had “8 hours” to review a complex document and asked whether the developer or the town would “be on the hook for the bonds.” Kingshill asserted the agreement “puts all the risk on the taxpayer and none of it on the developer.” Rafael Ortega pointed out the EDA states “no less than $27.5 million” in bonds and warned the agreement contains no explicit cap. Phillips Snowberger, who identified himself as a planning commission member, said the timeframe to digest “a 32-page legal document” was insufficient.

Isaac and the developer team described project benefits, saying the plan converts farmland to a project with an assessed value increase from about $96,000 to roughly $41 million and a project value “of over a hundred and $10,000,000,” and that the development could create about 700 construction and permanent jobs and include up to 250,000 square feet of retail. Isaac said on-site infrastructure needs are roughly $7 million and that much of the $27.2 million figure covers exterior infrastructure, contingency items and items outside the developer’s direct control.

Legal and financing details on the record

Town counsel and developer counsel summarized the financing approach: the $25.7 million tax-exempt series is intended to fund most public infrastructure (including roundabouts and right-of-way), while the $1.5 million taxable series covers items not eligible for tax-exempt financing. Kim Sterling stated the taxpayer agreement applies to the multifamily, senior housing and retail pieces identified in the EDA. Counsel also described a “tax code” / payment-in-lieu structure that secures some of the project’s tax payments against the land and noted lenders typically protect their interests, creating practical incentives for tax payments to continue.

Council debate and motions

Earlier in the meeting a motion to table the item to a separate special meeting was made and seconded; the council voted on that motion with a 3–2 tally in favor of tabling (motion passed). After public comment and a developer presentation, Councilmembers then moved to continue the matter to the next announced council meeting so residents could review written answers to questions raised and staff could circulate clarifying materials. That motion carried; one councilmember voted no. Council members said state law and subsequent RDC and bond-public-hearing processes will apply and that separate procurement and construction agreements remain to be completed if the EDA advances.

What remains unresolved

Speakers asked for written answers to a list of specific questions (for example: who guarantees bonds, whether the developer may use bond proceeds for developer fees, how cost savings will be tracked and why the split of any under-budget savings is 70% to the developer and 30% to the town). The developer said it would provide written responses and the council asked residents to submit questions in writing so answers can be prepared before the continued meeting. Town staff acknowledged some outstanding technical review items (the town engineer was not present to address engineering comments) and reiterated procurement and BLT/BOT steps required by state statute would control final oversight, bonding and contractor selection.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to table agenda item 3a (request to schedule a separate special meeting): passed 3–2 (vote recorded during meeting). - Motion to continue consideration to the next announced council meeting: passed (one nay recorded).

The council said additional public hearings and RDC review are required by law before any bonds are issued; the item will return to the council after the town posts required notices and the developer provides written responses to outstanding questions.