Residents press Whitestown council on legal invoices, in-house counsel and subdivision traffic and buffer concerns

Two residents used the Feb. 12 public-comment slot to press Whitestown officials on town legal invoices and upcoming development impacts.

Ken Kingsville (6515 E. 750 S.) asked the council about the status of his public-records request dated Jan. 29 for detailed legal invoices and questioned multiple line entries he saw on the claims register. He told council staff he believed some legal and banking entries appeared to be duplicated and asked for clarification on voided and reissued checks and on a $3 discrepancy he found in a transportation loan entry.

A town attorney or clerk-treasurer staff member responded that the town had met the seven-day statutory initial response to the request and that a further review was in progress because the request covered over a year of invoices and multiple pages that require review. Clerk/treasurer staff explained to Kingsville that some apparent duplicated entries on the register reflected voided checks that were reprinted when a check printed incorrectly, and that insurance-company credits or interfund allocations can appear as credits on utility claims. The clerk-treasurer agreed to update posted agenda links from Jan. 6 and to follow up on Kingsville’s request for invoice clarifications.

Ken Kingsville also suggested the town consider hiring an in-house attorney instead of relying on outside counsel; he said a full-time attorney might reduce outside legal spending. Town staff noted the volume and complexity of matters under review and the need to follow statutory public-records deadlines when processing requests.

Kevin Russell (6123 Golden Eagle Drive, postal Zionsville) raised several non-agenda concerns. Russell said comments on a podcast about council membership could harm property values and asked the council to “disavow those kind of comments.” He also argued council members should be allowed to attend park meetings to hear resident input and urged enforcement of an existing buffer zone near Westwood Landings that he recalled being established when that subdivision was approved. Russell raised traffic concerns about a proposed subdivision on County Road 750 (several hundred homes) and said road capacity and coordination with neighboring jurisdictions (including Ronald Reagan Boulevard extensions) must be addressed before new subdivisions are activated.

What the town said and next steps - Town staff said they responded to Kingsville’s records request within the seven-day statutory window and would continue the document review; they will report back when the review is complete. - The clerk-treasurer agreed to look into reissuing or clearing outstanding checks and to update the public links noted by Kingsville. - Staff acknowledged Russell’s concerns about road capacity and buffer zones; those topics will be considered when related subdivision applications come forward to planning and to the council.

Neither resident asked for nor received an immediate council vote; both matters were recorded as public comment and directed to appropriate staff for follow-up.