A petition filed at the Nov. 4 Michigan City Common Council meeting challenged the legal formation of an Economic Improvement District tied to the Sola development, prompting a detailed response from bond counsel and a vote to pause final ratification until city legal staff can report back.

Resident Carly Dunn told the council she filed a formal legal objection alleging the EID was invalid because the parcels at issue were not owned by the LLCs when the petition was filed. "The parcels of land were not owned by the LLCs at the time that the petition was filed in July," Dunn said, adding she researched minutes and Indiana code provisions before submitting the objection.

The council heard a rebuttal from bond counsel and outside attorneys who said the transfers and legal steps were taken in a sequence intended to preserve the city's bargaining position and permit the developer to close financing. Randy Rompola, bond counsel with offices in South Bend, said the redevelopment commission authorized creation of for‑profit entities in March and that the properties were transferred to the LLCs in July; he acknowledged "scrivener's errors" in some entity names and legal descriptions and said the city planned to correct those errors.

City Attorney Harris told the council the file showed the redevelopment commission had acted to preserve the opportunity for a developer to close financing and that the use of affiliated for‑profit entities is a common mechanism to allow an EID to be in place before a developer's financial closing. Harris recommended providing the council a written legal opinion and said staff would supply a memo addressing the petition's allegations.

After public comment and legal explanations, Councilman Brzezinski asked that city legal counsel investigate the petition's specific allegations and return to the council with a written report. The council later voted 7‑0 to table the ordinance ratifying prior EID findings until the legal review is complete.

The petition also alleged a $450,000 payment to a community development nonprofit connected to the project was evidence of a conflict. Attorneys for the city said the Community Development Corporation (CDC) described in the development agreement is a bona fide not‑for‑profit created to facilitate affordable housing and that the payment is unrelated to the ownership transfers; they said allegations of individual illegal benefit would require proof and could be criminal if true.

The council did not adopt or reject the EID ratification ordinance on Nov. 4. Instead, members voted to delay final action and requested a written legal opinion and corrected documentation on entity names and deed corrections. The city attorney said he would circulate an opinion and supporting documents to council members and recommended the council take time to review the materials before further action.