Syracuse Town Council
It was standing room only in the council chambers as the Syracuse Town Council held a public hearing on annexing Oakwood Park Tuesday evening. The hearing lasted about half an hour.

Despite the large turnout, only one resident, Richard Williams spoke, asking a series of questions.

Town Attorney, Mike Reed, started the meeting explaining in March a petition from the Oakwood property owners and the Oakwood Foundation receiver was submitted to the town council requesting annexation. In accordance with the law, the public hearing is one step in the annexation process.

Residents of Oakwood Park and people living adjacent to the property were notified of the hearing. Council President Paul Stoelting explained the purpose of the hearing was to make comments, raise concerns about the annexation or to ask questions regarding the fiscal plan. He told the crowd issues regarding the recent court hearing on Oakwood would not be relevant to discuss.

Reed explained no decision would be made by the council. Indiana code calls for the council to decide on annexation within 30 to 60 days of the hearing. The council is expected to make a decision at its July meeting.

Williams was the only Oakwood Park resident to speak. He asked several questions, the first being zoning since the park is currently zoned residential but the hotel is located in the park. Reed explained the park is zoned residential but areas may be zoned as a non-conforming use.

Williams also asked about a part of the plan mentioning utility inspections. James Higgins, a certified public accountant with London Witte Group which drew up the fiscal plan, explained residents would not be subject to mandatory inspections. The inspections mentioned in the plan referred to new construction.
Willams also asked about an estimated cost of $8,000 for road maintenance and asked if that covered ice, snow and leaf removal as well as pot hole repair.

Councilman Brian Woody explained the costs outlined in the plan are a guess as to what the impact of annexing Oakwood would be to the town. Councilman Larry Siegel stated the town council would have to maintain Oakwood at the same level it does the town.

Williams also questioned replacing the street signs and purchasing a piece of equipment for it. Town Manager Henry DeJulia said yes, the street signs and posts would have to be replaced and the town was looking at purchasing a piece of equipment to do that.

Williams asked if new water meters would be installed at Oakwood Park homes. Jeremy Sponseller, public works superintendent, said the meters would be updated to those similar to what town residents have.
Williams also questioned if the Oakwood Foundation would have its own meters. DeJulia stated the Oakwood Foundation would pay for its own utilities, but he wasn't sure how many meters it would have.
Williams also asked about a list of costs outlined in the fiscal plan and if the town would pay for street lighting in the park. DeJulia said street lighting was still being negotiated.

It was noted there would be increased patrols by Syracuse Police since Oakwood Park would be part of the town. Woody again explained the town is required by law to give an estimated impact annexing Oakwood would have on it.

DeJulia also noted the numbers quoted were about a year old and the actual costs could be higher or lower. Woody explained after the initial costs of annexation the only increase residents would see after utilities is in their property taxes.

Williams noted the town would lose about $6,000 in water and sewer revenue and asked if that would be recovered some other way. Both Woody and DeJulia said no.

Higgins explained property tax is controlled by levy controls to an extent added parcels adds assessed value to the town. Due to the levy controls, the assets grow and the costs drop. It will be up to the Department of Local Government Finance if the town made its case to keep tax money to pay for services it provides, or if the tax rate is to be lowered or a combination of the two. It was highly unlikely the town would be able to keep 100 percent of the new tax revenue it would receive by annexing Oakwood.

Tom Niezer of Barrett and McNagny, Fort Wayne, attorney for Ian Rolland, Oakwood's receiver, said Rolland supported the fiscal plan and was working with others to ready the property so it will be viable again.

Kosciusko County Superior Court
The latest hearing regarding Oakwood was brief, but productive. Kosciusko County Superior Court Judge Duane Huffer signed an order removing Oakwood Parks restrictive covenants at the hearing held June 10.
Thomas Yoder, of Barrett and McNagny, Fort Wayne, attorney for Ian Rolland, Oakwoods receiver, told Huffer all the property owners had been notified of the hearing as had the general public.

The receiver and Buckingham Co. which is purchasing the properties want the covenants, wanted the restrictions which included prohibitions against laughing, smiling, dancing and drinking and more removed so Buckingham Co. can apply for a license to serve alcohol.

Yoder noted the request before the court was to remove the restrictive covenants of 1946 and 1956 and those portions of the 2004 resolution as they related to the 1946 covenants.

Tom Niezer, a colleague of Yoders, said he was working with the title company and with Buckingham Companies, regarding what will happen to the property in relation to the covenants.

Yoder told Huffer the receiver argues the 1946 and 1956 covenants are unenforceable because they were not legally done correctly and there was no one to enforce them.

Huffer asked about easements regarding the beach and waterfront at Oakwood. Yoder said those issues were unaffected by the request to remove the covenants.

Huffer asked if items set forth in the 2004 resolution could cause problems in regard to the sale of the property. Yoder told the court Buckingham wants to be a good neighbor and understands residents have access rights.

Huffer asked if there were any residents present against the order to remove the covenants. There were none. Gregory Huffman, an attorney with DeFur Voran, representing the Oakwood property owners told Huffer those things left in the covenants enforceable are what the property owners are concerned about.
Yoder told the court there have been substantial conversations with the title company regarding the property owners concerns. He presented an affidavit from the title company regarding the matter.
Huffer complimented Huffer, Niezer and attorney Kylee Shirey, also with Barrett and McNagny, on their hard work and signed the order.

He asked about an anticipated day of closing. Yoder said the parties were still trying to nail down some last details and said he would be requesting a status hearing in the next couple of weeks.

One of those details is zoning as Oakwood was working under a non-conforming use, so the property may have to be rezoned. Huffer asked why the zoning matter is not dealt with immediately regardless of whether the sale goes through or not. Yoder explained theres no agreement about the issue yet.
Rolland said the process has been interesting but complex. Its been a good learning experience. My expectation is were near the end of the process, he told the court.

Yoder said the parties are shooting to close on the property in October or November. Rolland said he would like to see it closed sooner rather than later due to the expenses incurred on dormant property.

Mail-Journal Archives